RE: mammograms reply for Liz. , Ann

[Guest guest]

Hi Liz, , Ann and anyone else interested in this topic,

15 years ago at 33 I was told I had a lump during a regular OBGYN exam and what

followed were a series of 6 mammograms in one year to figure out what was going

on because every time they took one, they kept saying they need a better image

or something. Finally they still couldn't tell and did a biopsy which told

them there was no cancer but I had fibrocysitc disease which many women get due

to hormonal changes etc. I've only had one other mammogram since but don't plan

on any more. Here's a excerpt for a document I put together for a relative who

was advised to get them every year and after that more references, articles,

some links, some full articles copied and pasted. Browse through them as you

like and take what you need, but definitely look into it as we should all be

demanding safer, earlier detection alternatives. Sorry, the fonts are all

messed up since I cut and pasted from so many sources. This is a

Summary from the long article from the British

Medical Journal and additional information is provided about Thermography.

Mammography Myths Remain Unexposed

“Although routine breast screening is often recommended by public health

programs to reduce mortality from breast cancer, women need to carefully

evaluate whether the benefits of routine mammography outweigh the potential

harms.

The effect of mammograms in reducing mortality from breast cancer is

controversial--studies have found a reduction in risk of death from breast

cancer that ranges from 63 percent to six percent among women who are screened.

Part of the problem is that mammograms do not detect cancer early enough, and

also that they themselves may pose an increased risk of cancer with every

exposure.

Women must be given balanced information about the uncertainties, risks and

limitations of breast cancer screening so they can make an informed decision

about routine mammography and evaluate their options.”

British Medical Journal July 12, 2003;327:101-103 (Full Text Article)

Other MULTIPLE sources state that screening mammograms are a health hazard that

must be carefully weighed, particularly since Thermograms are better for early

cancer detection and pose no radiation risks so they can be done more

frequently, on a yearly basis without further increasing the risks of cancer .

The results of a 2004 study revealed that the risk of low-dose radiation DNA

damage from the mammogram machine is considerably higher (up to 5X) than

currently suspected. How does that translate into real life? The pre-menopausal

breast is highly sensitive to radiation. Under current guidelines, each

mammogram exposure increases cancer risk by 1%. Risk is even higher for baseline

screening at younger ages. This amount of risk is considered so acceptable that

it's not even mentioned to the patient. Multiply that times 5 . Now we know

that if a woman has had 10 mammograms she is at 50% higher risk. How acceptable

is this? Add other risk factors like smoking or family

history and it becomes it evident why the cancer rate is increasing.

The radiation exposure of one mammogram is equal to 1,000 times that of a

chest X-ray.

1 rad per breast is emitted. Each rad increases the risk for cancer by

1%.

The breast compression during mammography can spread cancer, by

rupturing small blood vessels surrounding any early, as yet undetected

cancers.

Thermography has the only current technology to detect breast dysplasia---

precancerous cells.

Thermography is painless, safe, and 99% accurate in determining if a tumor is

present. All tumors even in early stages emit greater heat than the normally

developing tissue surrounding it. Thermography measures temperature changes in

the body. Tumors create their own blood vessels. Where there are more blood

vessels, there is more heat. It is in these areas on the body that the camera

detects changes in heat or temperature. Therefore thermography can spot these

“hot spots” about 8 years earlier than mommograms. Medical doctors who

interpret the breast scans are board certified thermologists.

In most cases, breast cancer has been slowly growing from 8-10 years prior

to mammogram detection.

Thermography can detect in year 2 of its development, thus increasing

treatment options.

Countries of Europe, Canada, & Australia routinely screen healthy

breasts with thermography

Mammography is then appropriately used if thermography shows a “hot

spot” to direct biopsy and then further treatment.

Breast thermography can also rule out the need for biopsy if mammogram

results are not clear.

Over 1 million breast biopsies are performed annually in the U.S. with

75-80% benign.

· Breast thermography can be used during pregnancy, nursing, & or

women with implants.

(Mammography is contraindicated in these circumstances.)

· Starting breast thermography at age 25 gives you the earliest detection

for prevention.

Breast cancer begins up to 15 years prior to causing death.

· Starting breast thermography at any age gives you the safest and

earliest detection possible.

· The proper screening hierarchy is thermography, sonography,

mammography, biopsy----intervention.

This approach limits radiation exposure to only the high risk. Only

biopsy can diagnose with certainty.

· Breast thermography is affordable, usually only about $150.00.

· Breast thermography is reimbursable by some insurers.

Even if it isn’t covered, it is well worth the expense.

· Thermography can also be used to detect heart disease and stroke risk.

And these are excerpts from other articles:

“Philip Hoekstra, Ph.D., a pioneer in the use of thermography, has scanned

over 50,000 women since 1971,” Klaber wrote. “In almost all conditions now, he

claims, thermography is superior in detecting breast cancer earlier than

mammography, especially in premenopausal women. He and many other authorities

are convinced that mammography should not be used as an initial screening

device—it should be employed only as a last resort.

“Of course, radiologists have major investments in mammographic equipment,

they are familiar with [its] use, and [they] consider surgery an imperative in

virtually all cases,” Klaber continues. “One needn't be a radiologist to operate

thermographic equipment, and therefore thermography is viewed as competition

rather than as an invaluable technology to be embraced. Only when women

themselves start demanding this form of nontoxic screening technique from their

physicians is there likely to be a change.”5

It’s important to note that thermography training varies considerably: Some

thermographers are trained by the folks who manufacture thermography machines,

while others go through a more rigorous certification process sponsored by

groups such as the American Academy of Medical Infrared Imaging or the American

Board of Clinical Thermography.

Many breast cancer activists and women’s health advocates, including Breast

Cancer Action, have been demanding better, non-radiation-based screening

techniques for a long time, and both traditional and alternative medical

practitioners generally agree that we need to find alternatives to mammography.

Mammograms miss at least 10 percent of cancers (including my own 1.4-centimeter

malignant tumor, which was discovered on self-exam). Conversely, 60 to 80

percent of the lesions recommended for biopsy are benign. “In a better world,

breast images would unfailingly distinguish malignant tissue from benign, so

there would be no need to remove tissue to reach a verdict,” a recent issue of

the Harvard Women’s Health Watch noted. “Cancers would be detected earlier, and

only the malignant tissue would be removed.”6

Thermogram vs. Mammogram

August 28, 2007 — Sherri Tenpenny, DO

People often wonder if a thermogram is better than a mammogram, or if they

can get a painless thermogram instead of a painful mammogram. Though both tests

are used to detect breast cancer, each test has a different purpose.

A thermogram detects subtle heat changes that point to an area of evolving

pathology in the breast. This may or may not be cancer. A mammogram is used to

detect a mass that has already formed in the breast, often identified by a

cluster of calcium specks. By the time a mammogram locates a tumor, it has been

growing for at least 5 years.

This is early detection?

Active Cancer Cells Can Double in Number Every 90 Days

90 days 2 cells

1 year 16 cells

2 years 256 cells

3 years 4,896 cells

4 years 65,536 cells

5 years 1,048,576 cells (still undetectable with mammogram!)

6 years 16,777,216 cells

7 years 268,435,456 cells

8 years 4,294,967,296 cells (doubled 32 times) *

*Most cancers are detected when the diameter is 1cm (about the size if a

dime) and contains about 1 billion cells

Thermal Imaging can detect growth patterns in the 2nd year!

Why wait until it’s too late?

Why would I want to use Thermography for breast screening?

This is a hypothetical chart, of course, but it is very representative of

an average growth pattern of the

typical slow growing breast tumor. Most doctors agree and even tell their

breast cancer patients that they have had the growth for 8 or 10 years.

This is why:

Mammograms are a good tool for determining the exact location of a developed

tumor, but it is not an earlywarning system, which some women assume that it is.

“Early” is a relative term, so if a mammogram can see it in the 8th year, it is

earlier than the 10th year, but in any case, even the 7th year is too late to

change the outcome. The real danger of breast cancer is whether or not it has

spread to a vital organ. If it is going

to spread, it has had many years to do so. We deserve earlier detection, and

this is it.

Thermography can see the blood supply that feeds a tumor in its infancy, and

the only way to detect it in that stage is to establish a thermographic baseline

and monitor every year for the real early signs!

Thermography can totally change a person’s health history in advance.

Source: Buchanan JB,et al. Tumor growth, doubling times, and inability of

the radiologist to diagnose certain cancers.

Radiol Clin N Am. 1983;21:115-26

Here are some options for Thermography Centers in the NJ area:

SW Flowers, M.D.

Healing Arts

2 Plymouth Place

Maplewood, NJ 07040

973-761-1491

Philip Getson, DO

Board Certified Thermologist

Liesha Getson

Certified Thermographic Technician

100 Brick Road, Suite 206

Marlton, NJ 08053

Phone: (856) 596-5834

Fax: (609) 268-5763

Additional off site locations available on these dates:

& #61623; Monday, May 5, 2008

Dr. Colette

1000 Allaire Rd.

Spring Lake Heights, NJ 07762

732-449-4121

& #61623; Thursday, May 15, 2008

Body Mechanics Massage Therapy

50 N. lin Tpke.

Ho Ho Kus, NJ 07423

201-444-7661

& #61623; Monday, May 19, 2008

Lionville Holistic Health Center

312 Gordon Drive

Lionville, PA 19341

610-363-7474

& #61623; Thursday, June 5, 2008

Dallas Wellness Center

4048 Freemansburg Ave.

Easton, PA 18045

610-253-1977

& #61623; Monday, June 9, 2008

Queens Health Center II

707 Route 113 County Line Plaza

Souderton, PA 18964

215-721-8828

http://www.breastthermography.com/

THE EARLIEST BREAST CANCER

DETECTION AVAILABLE

Wouldn’t it be great if there was a test that could offer women true early

detection, enough in advance to prevent invasive tumor growth?

Breast thermography has the ability to warn women up to 10 years before any

other procedure that a cancer may be forming.

• INDIVIDUALIZED BREAST CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT

Are you personally at greater risk for breast cancer?

Women with a family history are definitely at greater risk, but 75% of women

who get breast cancer have no family history of the disease. Regardless of your

family history, if a thermogram is abnormal you run a future risk of breast

cancer that is 10 times higher than a first order family history of the disease.

Thermography is the only technology to provide women with a future risk

assessment. If discovered, certain thermographic risk markers can warn a woman

that she needs to work with her doctor to improve her breast health. Monitoring

with regular check-ups and thermography will look for improvements with time or

possibly the earliest signs that a problem may exist.

• AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN BREAST CANCER PREVENTION

Is there a hormone imbalance in your breasts?

Since the single greatest risk factor for the development of breast cancer is

lifetime exposure to estrogen, normalizing the balance of the hormones in the

breast may be the first and most significant step in prevention. Breast

thermography is the only known non-invasive procedure that can detect estrogen

dominance in the breasts. If a woman's thermographic images suggest a relative

progesterone deficiency (estrogen dominance), treatment of this condition may

play an important role in prevention. With treatment from her doctor, a woman

can use this information to balance the hormones in her breasts. Follow-up

thermograms are compared to the baseline estrogen dominant images as part of the

treatment monitoring process.

• SENSITIVE NON-INVASIVE SCREENING FOR YOUNGER WOMEN

Do you know that 23% of all breast cancers occur in women under 49?

This is the most common cancer in women in this age group. Breast cancers in

younger women are usually more aggressive and have poorer survival rates. Breast

thermography offers younger women a sensitive non-invasive (no radiation and

painless) addition to their regular breast health check-ups beginning with

baseline screening at age 20.

Unlike many after-the-fact imaging technologies in use, breast thermography

has the ability to give a warning signal in advance of invasive tumor growth.

Combined with an unprecedented role in risk assessment, screening for younger

women, and possibly prevention, breast thermography offers women information

that no other procedure can provide. However, breast thermography is not a

replacement for mammography or any other form of breast imaging. Breast

thermography and mammography are complementary procedures, one test does not

replace the other. Studies show that the earliest detection is realized when a

multiple testing approach to screening is taken. This multimodal approach

includes breast self-examinations, physical breast exams by a doctor,

thermography, and mammography as needed.

Jun 11, 2007

Thermography for Breast and Full Body Screenings

Thermography or DITI (Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging) is a radiation free,

no contact, pain free, and FDA approved screening tool to visualize PHYSIOLOGY.

This exciting new and improved technology is now available in Los Angeles by

Innovative Thermal Imaging.

Thermography measures the heat which is constantly radiating away from the

surface of the skin. Breast thermography is a 15 minute non invasive screening

tool. It is safe and appropriate for any woman, regardless of age, even

teenagers are candidates for thermography. Thermography is especially valuable

for women with dense breasts, implants, prior surgeries and premenopausal

women.? It is also an effective screening tool for women with a history of

breast cancer in their family, women who have been on the pill or hormone

replacement therapy.

Thermography can detect subtle physiologic changes that accompany breast

disease, whether it is fibrocystic disease, infection, vascular disease, or

cancer. Mammograms, MRI, and Ultrasound are all tests of anatomy. Because

physiological changes often preceed changes in anatomy, thermography offers a

chance for very early detection of changes in the breast tissue. Studies show

DITI has the ability to alert a woman of a developing cancer up to eight years

before any other test. It is a well know fact that early detection of breast

disease is crucial. This affords a woman time to make lifestyle changes and

pursue other less invasive treatments to return to health. Everyone is born with

their own unique thermal fingerprint. For this reason, it is necessary to

develop a baseline to determine your unique vascular patterns. The second series

of scans is taken 90 days after the initial scans. This is because of the

duplication pattern of cancer cells. Once a stable baseline has

been established, the screening is done annually. ?

Another important use of thermal screening is to monitor the person who is

using therapies to improve their breast health, and validate that there are

returning to a healthy status. For example, women with estrogenic activity in

the breasts who are balancing their hormones, can see the changes taking place

with thermography.

Women who catch early vascular changes to the breast can monitor their

treatment protocols, and verify that they are returning to normal breast tissue.

Thermography can also be used for full body scans. This is especially useful for

unexplained pain. Again, X-rays and MRI?s are tests of anatomy and cannot

visualize pain. Thermography can help locate the origin of the pain, and

therefore improve the implementation and monitoring of treatment. Inflammation,

which we are learning is the cause of many diseases, can be recorded by this

ultra sensitive camera.

A very important component in the effectiveness of Thermography is the doctor

who reads the scans. Innovative Thermal Imaging utilizes specially trained

M.D.?s called Thermologists who read and report on the digital pictures when

they are sent over the intranet. The pictures are then saved, and can be

reviewed with new scans to determine a baseline.

There are two amazing women to thank for this forward thinking technology, Dr.

Hillary , D.C., DHM, C.C.T. and Jodi Verdugt Cooley B.A., LMT, CCT.

Dr. has been in the preventative business in the San Valley, Los

Angeles for over 20 years. In 2006 she put together the parent company of

Innovative Thermal Imaging with Jodi Cooley. Together they completed training

under the American College of Clinical Thermography at Duke Medical Center. Dr.

carries a B.S. in Biology and a doctorate of Chiropractic degree from the

L.A. College of Chiropractic and a Doctorate of Homeopathic Medicine from The

Hahnemann College of Homeopathy.

Jodi Verdugt Cooley is also a Certified Clinical Thermographer, and she is the

Chief Thermographer amongst the halls of Innovative Thermal Imaging. She also

oversees the coordination of all mobile clinics and education of the community.

She is a graduate of the University of South Florida and attended Florida State

University for grad school. A celebrated life coach and celebrity Massage

Therapist, Cooley earned a certificate as a ‘You Can Heal Your Life’

practitioner in 2002. Her unique understanding and blend of massage therapy,

spirituality, philosophy and psychology keep her Prosperity Workshops popular

among people who wish to achieve better health, direction and financial

stability.

Modern thermography is the only method available for visualizing pain. It

offers the opportunity for very early detection of breast disease. And it is

radiation free, risk free and cost effective.

www.innovativethermalimaging.com

Here's the problem with mammograms and all x-rays in general, and I have this

from many other sources but this is the first link that I found in th folder:

" Cells exposed to low doses of X-rays may delay or completely avoid repairing

damaged DNA, raising questions about the safety of routine X-rays.

Surprisingly, cells exposed to higher doses of X-rays repaired damage at a

faster rate. The study’s results were unexpected, but, according to

researchers, it is not known whether the reduced repair capacity after low-dose

X-rays is a good thing or a bad thing. While unrepaired breaks in DNA can

result in cells becoming cancerous, faulty repairs are also problematic. It may

be that allowing a cell to die and be replaced is safer than repairing the cell,

researchers said. "

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/04/19/x-rays.aspx

So I'm due for my first thermogram soon, I have the referral I just need to

schedule it and tell you more about it afterwards. It's not always easy to find

a place that does it and has experts to read it. I know I tried to look for my

husband's grandmother in NJ and there are only a handful of centers and far away

from where she lives. In he Bay Area, also about a handful. But most Big cities

should have them and it's worth the trip.

Here's a sight that might help depending where you live. And don't hesitate to

ask your doctors, take the articles to them, talk to them, educate them if they

don't already know, make them work for that money we pay them, they should be

telling us of safer alternatives, not just recommending what they're told to

recommend because that's the easiest thing to do and never question these

recommendations and guidelines. As said, we're paying them, and they

should be keeping up to date with the latest research,making our prevention

efforts easier, not further placing our health at risk when better screening

tools are now available.

http://www.breastthermography.org/findalab.html

and here's more on why we should consider carefully whether mammograms are

really needed on an ongoing screening basis because it is up to us to educate

ourselves and DEMAND<YES!!! DEMAND!!!--better screening and prevention practices

from our doctors and health care practitioners.

" The dangers of mammography are recognized in the medical field. According to

Dr. Epstein of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, " Screening mammography

poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer for pre-menopausal

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. The pre-menopausal breast is highly

sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by

about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast

over a decade's screening. These risks are even greater for younger women

subject to 'baseline screening.' "

The coalition reports women who carry the A-T gene are especially prone to risk

from early mammography screening: " Radiation risks are some four-fold greater

for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T

(ataxia-telangiectasia) gene; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20

percent of all breast cancers diagnosed annually. "

" Mammography is used primarily as a tool to recruit new patients into

conventional cancer treatments, regardless of whether they would actually

benefit from such treatments, " said Mike , author of Natural Health

Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them. " The breast

cancer industry harms ten women for every one it helps. It is an industry of

greed, profits, and scare tactics, " added.

http://www.naturalnews.com/020841.html

The breast cancer industry is now run by corporations that profit from women

with disease. With nearly all breast cancer nonprofits being subjugated by drug

companies, the FDA censoring alternative cancer solutions, and the mainstream

media wildly exaggerating the benefits of near-useless cancer drugs like

Herceptin, there's hardly a message heard about breast cancer today that doesn't

have a profit motive behind it.

The emphasis on breast cancer " screening, " and the circus of holding breast

cancer awareness months is, of course, all about recruiting more women into a

system of treatment that generates profits for drug companies. Using fear-based

tactics of recruitment (like telling women, " You'll die in six months if you

don't undergo chemotherapy... " ), the breast cancer industry manages to corral

women of all races and ages into treatments that actually harm far more women

than they help.

Find that hard to believe? Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark

studied 500,000 women to determine the results of breast cancer screening

programs. They found that for every one woman helped by breast cancer screening,

ten were harmed through false diagnosis or unnecessary treatments that

devastated their health.

" What seems like good and obvious advice in everyday life is not always

scientifically or medically sound " , said Gotzsche, MD, director of the

center. " So we might say there is a benefit of one but a harm of 10 from

screening for breast cancer. "

In other words, breast cancer screening is surprisingly harmful to women. That's

partly because the procedure itself irradiates the breast tissue and actually

causes cancer, but also because practically any screening result producing a

questionable blur on the final image may result in a woman being manipulated

through fear into undergoing aggressive, toxic cancer treatments even when they

never had breast cancer in the first place. (False positives are extremely

common in breast cancer screening, and in some cases, the machinery is

incorrectly calibrated and doesn't even meet radiology standards.)

Preventing preventionAnd yet breast cancer screening is the only form of

" prevention " offered by the cancer industry. Only it isn't prevention, it's

detection. Breast cancer screening does nothing to educate women how to really

prevent breast cancer, nor does it teach women how to change their diets and

lifestyles so that breast cancer never develops in the first place. In fact, the

strategy of the cancer industry today can be best described as waiting for

women to get cancer, then treating it with toxic drugs.

While tens of millions of women are developing undetectable, early-stage breast

cancer right now, the cancer industry does nothing. They will not tell these

women how to halt the growth of cancer tumors; they will only wait until the

cancer becomes large enough to see on a screening test, and then they will scare

the women to death with harmful, authoritative medical demands and toss them

into chemotherapy -- a treatment that causes permanent, irreversible harm to the

brain, heart, liver, kidneys and other organs.

Yet even the World Health Organization admits that 70 percent of all cancers

can be prevented through simple changes in food and lifestyle. That number is

probably conservative, though. My own opinion is that 90 percent of all cancers

can be prevented through simple food and lifestyle changes. Yet no one in the

cancer industry is interested in teaching any of these strategies to women. In

the cancer industry, there is no incentive to teach women how to avoid breast

cancer, because to do so would eliminate a future customer!

That's why I started the Education Not Medication program. It is a humble

effort to teach women how to prevent their own breast cancer through

scientifically-supported natural health strategies that are easy to understand

and simple to follow. They include things like eating more broccoli and garlic,

getting more natural sunlight on your skin (to generate the anti-cancer nutrient

Vitamin D) and avoiding cancer-causing chemicals in manufactured foods (such as

sodium nitrite, found in bacon, sausage and virtually all packaged meats). A

more detailed list is offered below.

The cancer industry depends on more cancerThe cancer industry remains silent

about these cancer prevention solutions. Ever wonder why? It's because the

livelihood of the industry depends on more cancer! If cancer rates plummeted by

70 percent or more, the industry would be devastated. The incomes, egos and

power positions of cancer industry operators depends entirely on the continued

spread of cancer among the population.

Ever notice that cancer centers are not called, " Anti-Cancer Centers? " You see

them in virtually every city and state across the country: The Washington Cancer

Center, or the San Francisco Cancer Center. Here in Arizona, we have a massive,

new building being constructed, and it's named the Arizona Cancer Center. These

are all monuments to cancer, and they are for-profit businesses constructed for

the purpose of making money from a woman's disease. They turn cancer into

profit, and they depend on continued cancer to stay in business.

That's why there's no real effort underway to teach women how to prevent breast

cancer. There's no program in place to teach women about the anti-cancer effects

of sunlight and vitamin D (in fact, cancer industry groups like the American

Cancer Society run public service ads warning people about sunlight!), there's

no honest effort to teach women about the natural anti-cancer medicine founds in

certain foods, and no one is telling women the truth about the cancer-causing

chemicals in perfumes, laundry detergent, cosmetics and personal care products.

In other words, when it comes to preventing cancer, the cancer industry is

silent. Why should they say anything, anyway? If they teach women how to prevent

breast cancer, they lose customers. Besides, the scheme they're running right

now is working brilliantly. They maximize revenues and profits by preventing

prevention and waiting for women to get cancer, then treating them with

high-profit pharmaceuticals, radiation and surgical procedures. They have the

easiest business model in the world: All they have to do is keep their mouths

shut about what causes cancer, and wait for new customers to fill the cancer

centers. And to help them out, corporations, media organizations and volunteers

(many are women!) actually help them raise more money! It makes about as much

sense as holding a fundraiser for Bill Gates.

It's time to teach genuine cancer prevention to womenThe cancer industry has

been getting away with this scam for years, but I say enough is enough. It's

time to declare, " The Emperor has no clothes! " and that the best way to help

protect the lives of women is to teach them how to avoid breast cancer rather

than waiting for them to get it.

And doing so is surprisingly simple. All you have to do is raise awareness

about the things that cause breast cancer vs. the things that prevent breast

cancer. This can be done through public service announcements, information

handouts, or even internet campaigns like this one.

I also suggest that all these cancer treatment centers donate 100 percent of

their profits to cancer prevention campaigns. It's wrong to profit from a

woman's cancer, is it not? If these businesses really cared about stopping

cancer, they'd refuse to profit from the disease and, instead, use the money to

help stop cancer in future generations of women (and men, for that matter).

What an idea, huh? That these ultra-wealthy non-profits and billion-dollar

corporations might spend some money on teaching women how to prevent cancer...

If it ever really happens, of course, it will only be as a cover-your-ass

reaction to public awareness about the corporatization of the breast cancer

industry. As word spreads, these non-profits will have to do something to save

their reputation, so they'll start running tiny " prevention " campaigns to save

face. But underneath the facade, make no mistake: cancer is big, big business,

and the cancer industry is driven by profiting from a woman's body, not

protecting it from cancer.

The real answers to breast cancer preventionHere, for the benefit of women

everywhere, is a partial list of the things that cause cancer and things that

don't. You're not going to find full descriptions and citations here, as that

would require an entire book all by itself, but this is a very useful reference

list that tells the truth about what causes or prevents cancer in the human

body.

18 things that CAUSE cancer: (in no particular order)

Smoking cigarettes

Drinking non-organic milk or eating non-organic dairy products

Hydrogenated oils and trans fatty acids - See Poison In the Food or articles

on hydrogenated oils

Mammography radiation - see articles on mammograms

Chemotherapy and radiation

Perfumes and fragrance products

Cosmetics and personal care products - see articles on personal care

products

Home cleaning products, including laundry detergent, dryer sheets, etc.

Plastic food containers - includes plastic lining inside food cans

Sodium nitrite - found in most processed meats, see articles on sodium

nitrite

Pesticides, PCBs, chlorine and other chemicals

Acrylamides (formed during high-heat food processing such as frying)

Watching television / lack of exercise

Severe emotional distress or relationship stress

Refined sugars / refined grains

Dry cleaning chemicals

Hair color chemicals

Nail polish remover

22 things that PREVENT cancer:

Vitamin D and sunshine - see the Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D

Anti-cancer foods - see articles about anti-cancer foods

Green tea - see articles about green tea

Broccoli and cruciferous vegetables - see articles about broccoli

Medicinal mushrooms - reishi, shiitake, agaricus blazei, etc.

Lycopene and tomatoes

Infra-red saunas and sweat lodges - because sweating expels toxins

Chlorella - see articles on chlorella, or check out a recommended chlorella

product: Rejuvenate! From IntegratedHealth.com (product to be launched soon)

Pomegranate seeds - see artiles on pomegranate or

http://www.ats.org/news.php?id=32

Omega-3 oils / chia seeds - available from GoodCauseWellness.com

Rainforest herbs - There are many anti-cancer rainforest herbs, including

graviola and Cat's Claw (Una de Gato). Recommended sources is Terry Pezzi of the

high-integrity Amazon Herb Company (also helping to preserve the Amazon

rainforest) - Another great source of rainforest herbs is Rain Tree with

Juice detoxification - Read books by Dr. Cousens or visit his

retreat in Southern Arizona

Acupuncture - helps move blood and chi (body's energy)

Sprouts - ALL sprouts are anti-cancer. Best sprouting machine is the

EasyGreen Automatic Sprouter (use any search engine to find resellers)

Red clover - Helps cleanse the blood. Find from any supplement maker.

Deep breathing / oxygenation / stress reduction - Best product is called

Stress Eraser (highly recommended)

Yoga, Tai Chi or Pilates - These all boost lymph circulation

Cacao - (real chocolate) - Good sources are NavitasNaturals.com or

Superfoods.com

Therapeutic massage - helps move lymph, boost circulation

Mint - grow your own (the easiest plant to grow)

Apricot pits / laetrile / vitamin B17 - View this World Without Cancer video

featuring G.

Blackberries - Most berries contain some form of anti-cancer medicine

The cancer industry attacks nearly all genuine cancer solutionsAfter examining

this list, it's not difficult to notice something quite curious: The cancer

industry promotes many things that cause cancer while attacking most things

that prevent cancer. Naturopathic doctors who once prescribed laetrile for

cancer patients, for example, have been run out of the country or arrested.

Herbal product companies have been censored to such a degree that none dare tell

the truth about the anti-cancer effects of their own products, and even broccoli

growers and marketers are scared into remaining silent about the remarkable,

scientifically-proven anti-cancer effects of broccoli.

In other words, if you want to know what the cancer industry supports or

attacks, just check to see which list it's on. If it's on the list of things

that prevent cancer, the cancer industry (including most of its doctors,

oncologists, non-profits and government regulators) will be against it. If it's

on the list of things that cause cancer, they will promote it.

The exception to this is, of course, tobacco. That's a substance that doctors

once gladly promoted in magazine advertisements, claiming that smoking was good

for your health and even improved your teeth! But today, the tobacco scam has

long since been revealed, and even conventional medicine is now squarely against

this substance that they once strongly promoted.

The American Medical Association, by the way, used to actually run ads for

cigarettes in its flagship medical journal, JAMA. Doctors can always be bought

off and made to promote whatever poison is making the most money this decade

(these people have no shame). In the 1950's, it was cigarettes. Today, it's

pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. Different drugs, same scam. But money was

always -- and IS always -- the bottom line for conventional medicine.

And below is another article from this link

http://www.naturalnews.com/010886.html

Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never

knew)

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the

ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites

this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening,

an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society

recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts,

catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman's chances of survival by

at least 17 percent. The most common method for early detection is mammography.

A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths

otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use

doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the

image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and

innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical

community because of an error rate that is still high and

the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.

Effectiveness of Mammography Is mammography an effective tool for detecting

tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of

the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These " false

positives " aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to

many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all

positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer. At the

same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or " false

negatives. " Dr. S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims

that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each

mammography. 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.

Rauscher, then-director of the NCI. According to L. Blaylock, MD, one

estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast

cancer by two percent a year. 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. In the midst of the

1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took

out full-page ads in scientific

journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from

industry on a sober topic.

Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still

claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. 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.

According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing

cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

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. 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. " Similarly, studies reveal that

children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as

adults.

Navigating the Statistics While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer

has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the

incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between

1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40

percent in the United States. Some researchers attribute this increase to

better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast

cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the

correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is

much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing

number of cases. While the matter is still being debated, Professor

Steingraber offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber,

the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common

diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups

of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks

and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms.

The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women

under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure.

Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of

mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40

and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study

showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between

the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that

age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.

Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women

under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society

encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle

this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no

evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they may even do more

harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors

and decide for themselves.

New Screening Technologies While screening is an important step in fighting

breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography.

Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies.

Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography

does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also

important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense

breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results. Some doctors

are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography

system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert

x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital

mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to

produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in,

magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue

without having to take an additional image.

The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer: Regular mammography of

younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over

the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality

within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high

sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects

of radiation.

The Politics Of Cancer by S Epstein MD, page 539 In his book,

" Preventing Breast Cancer, " Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading

cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and

fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can

cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup,

preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal

imbalance.

Death By Medicine by Null PhD, page 23

" The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to

mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per

examination, " the panel explained. " Radiation can cause breast cancer in women,

and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of

exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.

Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in

premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of

increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed

dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk

for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two

rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms

since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a

single screening from older, high-dose equipment.

The Politics Of Cancer by S Epstein MD, page 537

No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect

breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the

procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow

women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.

The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23

The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of

Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs

for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and

other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than

could possibly be detected.

The Politics Of Cancer by S Epstein MD, page 291

A number of " cancer societies " argued, saying the tests — which cost between

$50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that

radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause

one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.

Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21

Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging

ionizing radiation. W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health

effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose

radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented

by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X

rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since

mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast

cancer called 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.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation,

the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells.

During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast,

as the breast is squeezed between two flat

plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression

could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now

being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one

in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal

screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast

cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal

mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older

ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast

to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still

higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger

that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may

rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.

The Politics Of Cancer by S Epstein MD, page 540

Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not

recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are

able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even

the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only

about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In

addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast

cancer increases by 2 percent.

The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104

Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a

potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of

mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay

between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay

can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially

dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children

have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is

reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer.

But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another

forty years or longer.

Eat To Beat Cancer by J Hatherill, page 132

The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency

between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer

Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there

little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite

NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer

from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the

incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the

NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary

warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer

Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current

low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to

explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light

scanning.

The Politics Of Cancer by S Epstein MD, page 544

High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test

results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study

of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that

of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be

cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest

further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted

that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives,

these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive

surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on

biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of

these " callbacks " result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast

tissue.72

Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

" Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure, "

continued the panel. " Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has

been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women. "

Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed

tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results.

Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to

detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may

develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from

breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that

women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer

Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr.

Love states, " We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for

at least 30%. "

Treating Cancer With Herbs by Tierra ND, page 467

Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate

of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in

women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of " missed tumors, " resulting in 40%

false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser,

which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in

younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.

Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit

that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and

10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than

half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.

Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42

Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast

cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase

your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons

to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very

few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are

pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention

birth defects, are just not worth it.

The Politics Of Cancer by S Epstein MD, page 305

Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer

known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast

cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use

of mammography!

Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123

As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of

thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced

from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the

thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's

chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr.

Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August

23, 1976).

The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct

result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid

screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending

a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after

age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors

still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate

technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to

mammography.

Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific

journals entitled " About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from

industry on a sober topic " (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major

manufacturer of mammography film.

The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of

routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do

significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States,

Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer

diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the

number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the

histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers

found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine

mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there

was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the

decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).

Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47

In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Wolff

and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this

issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290

New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six

months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff

matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer

but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the

clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to

their cancer-free counterparts.

Living Downstream by Steingraber PhD, page 12

One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact

numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die

from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms.

The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in

1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were

detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent

more women died from

The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57

One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in

young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to

prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation

exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the

practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53

When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233

Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are

more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been

estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography

of A-T carriers.

The Politics Of Cancer by S Epstein MD, page 539

A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500

cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31

percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast

cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may

not be a benefit in terms of survival.

Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Null, page 86

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for

more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss

breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when

the woman is under 50.

The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53

Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine

should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over

seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing

form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken

at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them

after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel

there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still

others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having

individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own

decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been

detected.

The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234 For breast cancer, thermography

offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process

five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors

have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical

diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a

minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt

and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the

patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a

mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast

tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.

Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587

Excerpts from SusunWeed’s book on Breast Cancer and from her

newsletter article also on Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is unchecked growth of abnormal breast cells.

• What causes cells to become abnormal and reproduce wildly? Damage to the

DNA, the brain of the cell, which causes mutations and activation of oncogenes.

Usually one mutation isn’t enough; most cells must undergo several mutations

before they become cancerous. (Sometimes the mutations must occur in sequence to

create a cancer, sometimes random order will do it.) What causes DNA damage?

Radiation, free radicals, genetic defects, electrical fields, chemicals, drugs,

viruses, and metabolic stresses.

Injury to the DNA initiates all cancer.

• When mutations accumulate and oncogenes turn on, the cell is initiated. It

is abnormal, but not cancerous. Initiated cells are diagnosed as atypia,

dysplasia, or hyperplasia.

• Damaged cells alone offer no threat to long life. To become threatening, the

abnormal cells must be promoted. Promoters bring the cells nutrients so they can

reproduce. (One of the strongest promoters of breast cancer is estrogen.)

Although promoted cells can disguise themselves so the immune sytem won’t

recognize them, most of them are seen and eaten, or encapsulated by the body so

they do no harm. Promoted cells are called carcinoma in situ.

According to Christiane Northrup, M.D., in situ cancer cells are frequently

found in the breasts of women who die of causes other than cancer. And according

to Love, M.D., breast cancer specialist, in situ cells are reversible

without invasive treatments and shouldn’t be thought of as cancers.

The cancer cascade: initiation, promotion, growth.

• Promoted breast cells, no matter how many of them there are, are not

classified as invasive unless they spread out of the tissues of origin and into

the surrounding tissues. This is the growth phase. When promoted cells enter the

growth phase, they begin to form a tumor and to recruit blood vessels to help

supply their immense need for nutrients. (The tumor may grow so quickly that

cells in its center die from lack of nourishment.) The diagnosis now becomes

infiltrating or invasive carcinoma.

The cancer cascade can be halted or reversed.

• Once a mass of abnormal, quickly-replicating cells has created a network of

blood vessels, individual cancer cells can separate from the tumor and travel to

other parts of the body. Because the breast is not vital to life, a breast

cancer that stays in the breast is not life-threatening. But if breast cancer

cells get to the liver, lungs, bone marrow, or the brain and continue to grow,

they can hinder the functioning of processes necessary for life. The body

attempts to check this spread by locking breast cancer cells in lymph node

prisons and by sending immune system cells out to eat traveling cancer cells. If

cancer cells are found in the axillary lymph nodes, the diagnosis is aggressive

or metastasized carcinoma.

Ninety percent of cancer deaths are from metastases.

• Not everyone whose cellular DNA is damaged will get cancer. Why not? All

cells have the capacity to repair themselves or to shut down if they are mutated

or damaged. Good lifestyle habits and ordinary foods such as lentils also

reverse DNA damage.

Special immune cells eat potential cancers.

• The wear-and-tear of life gives rise to so many mutated, abnormal, initiated

cells (even in a healthy person) that the immune system forms a constant stream

of specialized cells to seek out and consume them. So long as the immune system

is strong, and well supplied with nutrients, initiated and promoted cells can be

harmlessly eliminated, checking the possibility of cancer.

Cancer cells are immature yet reproduce without limits. Living long past their

normal span, they appear immortal.

• Building powerful immunity isn’t always enough, though. Cancer cells can

trick the immune system into leaving them alone, and they can replicate so

rapidly that they overwhelm the immune system with sheer force of numbers. One

of the reasons breast cancer is so difficult to treat is that cancer cells are

full of life. They no longer have the inner signal that tells them to die after

reproducing. Like the sorcerer’s apprentice, the woman with breast cancer finds

herself with cancer cells that replicate unceasingly. Cancer cells never grow up

and become productive members of their community. They simply take up space.

Breast cancer is not one disease, but many.

Because there are different types of cells in the breasts (e.g., ducts and

lobes) and a variety of ways that a cell can be abnormal, there are many kinds

of breast cancers and many possible treatments. Of the two dozen kinds of breast

cancer known, the majority originate in the duct cells. (See illustration of

duct cells, page 106.)

• Some breast cancers grow slowly, others quickly. Slow growing breast cancers

double in size every 42–100 days or more. Quick growing breast cancers can

double every 21 days. Pre- and peri-menopausal women tend to have faster

growing, more aggressive breast cancers (about 10–15 percent of all breast

cancers).

• Post-menopausal women, who account for 60–80 percent of all breast cancer

cases, usually have slow-growing cancers which rarely metastasize.

Microscopic examination of cellular tissue is the only scientifically accepted

way to diagnose cancer.

• The first breast surgery most women will have is a biopsy. When there is a

suspicious finding on a mammogram or a palpable lump, there is no way to rule

out cancer unless a piece of breast tissue is removed and examined under a

microscope by a pathologist. If there is a diagnosis of cancer and further

surgery is done, the breast tissues removed then are also sent to the

pathologist.

• The pathologist can see cancerous cells if they are present and can

determine the type and state of the cancer by a variety of signs. These findings

are collected into a pathology report which will, to a great degree, determine

the treatment options that you will be offered. Pathology reports are based on

opinion as well as fact, so many women have two, three, or even four different

pathologists look at their tissue samples and give an opinion.

• To judge the “stage” of a cancer (see page 137), lymph glands are removed

(excised) from the nearby armpit. Lymph gland excision always cuts some of the

nerves to the arm. Removal of the lymph glands does nothing to treat or cure

breast cancer, and may hinder the body’s ability to deal with cancer. Lymph

gland removal can cause numbness as well as pain, impaired circulation, swelling

(sometimes severe and long-lasting), and a life-long risk of severe infection.

The more lymph nodes removed, the more severe these side effects.

• Lack of cancer cells in the lymph nodes doesn’t guarantee that the cancer

hasn’t metastasized (one-third of all women with negative nodes nonetheless have

metastasizing cancer), but a positive finding does indicate that the cancer has

metastasized and may be growing elsewhere in the body.

It is difficult to determine if a cancer will metastasize.

• Aggressive (metastatic) cancer requires more vigorous treatment than

invasive (non-metastatic) cancer. And treatment is more effective if undertaken

before the metastasized cells begin to form masses in critical organs. But

micro-metastases and small clumps of cells are extremely dificult to find. What

to do?

Orthodox treatments include: Surgery to remove the primary tumor. Radiation to

eliminate any other cancer cells in the breast tissues. Chemotherapy to kill any

other cancer cells in the body. (But those that survive—and some always

do—mutate and become invulnerable to further chemotherapy.) And hormones such as

tamoxifen to check recurrence and metastatic growth.

Alternative treatments include: Caustic herbs and pastes to burn away the

primary cancer. Nourishing, tonifying, and stimulating treatments for building

immune strength. And a variety of anti-cancer compounds used systemically to

eliminate cancer cells in the breasts and elsewhere in the body. Exercise and a

diet of healthy food, nourishing infusions, healing oils, and phytoestrogen-rich

herbs to counter recurrence.

• Does survival after a diagnosis of breast cancer depend on orthodox medical

treatments? Women who refuse such treatments do not die sooner than women who

follow orthodoxy, according to an old (1977), but still valid, study by Hardin

B. , professor of medical physics. (“A Report on Cancer,” is available at

the library of the University of California at Berkeley.)

Mammograms

Who Needs Them?

Chapter Five of Breast Cancer? Breast Health!

by Susun Weed

Available at www.Ash-Tree-Publishing.com

Perhaps no aspect of breast cancer is more widely publicized than screening

mammography. Ads on television, in magazines, and in the daily paper urge

women to deal with fear about breast cancer by having a yearly mammogram. We're

even told that doing this is a way to " really care for yourself. "

But screening mammograms don't prevent breast cancer. A mammogram is an x-ray

and x-rays cause cancer. The ads promoting regular screening mammography are

paid for by those who stand to profit from their widespread acceptance and

use-the manufacturers of the equipment and x-ray film. Whose health does this

technology really benefit? Women's health? Or corporate health?

All Mammograms are x-rays. A mammogram uses radioactive rays to " see " breast

tissues. X-rays are known to cause DNA damage in breast cells.

A diagnostic mammogram is used when a woman or her practitioner feels a lump

and wants to see it. (Sonograms-a non-radioactive test-can be used instead.)

Most diagnostic mammograms are not one x-ray, but a series of x-rays.

A screening mammogram is done on a healthy woman to determine if there

are unsuspected signs of cancer, such as a shadow or micro-calcifications. A

screening mammogram is not one x-ray, but a series of x-rays, usually two per

breast, four in all.

Should you have a screening mammogram? At what age? How frequently? Science

hasn't agreed on answers to these questions.1 I believe that my anti-cancer

lifestyle (see page xv) will decrease my risk of dying from breast cancer in a

way that regular mammograms won't.

I care for my breasts with infused herbal oils, regular loving touch, organic

foods, and healthy exercise-and forgo regular screening mammograms. Of course,

you can do it all in the Wise Woman Tradition. The point is to pay attention to

your breasts.

All mammograms are x-rays. A mammogram uses radioactive rays to " see " breast

tissues. X-rays are known to cause DNA damage in breast cells.

A diagnostic mammogram is used when a woman or her practitioner feels a lump

and wants to see it. (Sonograms-a non-radioactive test-can be used instead.)

Most diagnostic mammograms are not one x-ray, but a series of x-rays.

A screening mammogram is done on a healthy woman to determine if there are

unsuspected signs of cancer, such as a shadow or micro-calcifications. A

screening mammogram is not one x-ray, but a series of x-rays, usually two per

breast, four in all.

Mammograms are inaccurate Low-radiation mammograms are safer mammograms, but

less radiation means a fuzzier picture. Standard x-rays-rarely used any more for

breasts-create an easy-to-interpert high-radiation image. Xerograms use half

that radiation, but are twice as hard to read. Film-screen mammography, the

latest very-low-radiation exam, gives an image that's even more difficult to

interpret. More than 10 percent of all screening mammograms done at one large

center in 1992 couldn't be read and had to be redone.2

A 1994 study showed wide variation in the accuracy with which mammograms are

interpreted. Understandably, those who read screening mammograms regularly are

more accurate than those who rarely do; in some hospitals, however, work loads

are so heavy that accuracy suffers from lack of time, not inexperience.

Roughly 8 out of 10 " positive " mammographic reports are " false positive, " that

is, a subsequent biopsy does not confirm the presence of cancer. And as many as

half (10-15 percent at an excellent facility) of all " negative " mammographic

reports are " false negative. " 3

According to current data, if all American women 40-50 years old were screened

yearly by mammogram, 40 out of every 100 breast cancers would be missed.4 If all

women over 50 were screened, 13 out of every 100 breast cancers would be missed.

Half of all breast cancers in women under 45 are invisible on a mammogram.5

Screening mammograms often miss the deadliest breast cancers: fast-growing

tumors in premenopausal women.

Mammograms can't tell if there's cancer

Neither diagnostic nor screening mammograms detect cancer. Mammograms can

reveal areas of dense tissue in the breasts. These areas may be cancer, or may

be associated with cancer, or may be normal tissue, but a mammogram can't tell.6

The only medically accepted way to tell is to do a biopsy. Over 80 percent of

the biopsies done to follow up on a suspicious screening mammogram find no

cancer.

Mammograms don't replace breast self-exams

Women find their own breast cancers most of the time. (Ninety percent of the

time according to one English study.7)

Monthly breast self-exam (or breast self-massage) provides early detection at

lower cost, with no danger-and more pleasure-than yearly screening mammograms.

Most breast cancers (80 percent) are slow growing, taking between 42 and 300

days to double in size. A yearly mammogram could find these cancers 8-16 months

before they could be felt, but this " early detection " does little to improve the

already excellent longevity of women with slow-growing, non-metastasized breast

cancers.

The 20 percent of breast cancers that are fast growing are the trouble-makers.

They can double in size in 21 days. Monthly breast self-exams are much more

likely to find these aggressive cancers than are yearly mammograms. (A 21-day

doubling cancer will be visible on a mammogram only 6 weeks before it can be

felt.) If you massage or examine your breasts even six times a year, you can

take action on fast-growing lumps. If you rely on mammograms exclusively, the

cancer could grow undetected for months.

In a recent look at 60,000 breast cancer diagnoses in the United States, 67

percent were found by the woman or her doctor -and over half of these were not

visible on a mammogram-while 33 percent were discovered by mammogram. (This may

seem like a substantial number of cancers found by mammography, but the majority

of them were in situ cancers, a controversial type of cancer that may-but often

does not-progress to invasive cancer.)

Mammographic screening increases risk of breast cancer mortality in

premenopausal women.

A Canadian study of 90,000 women (published in Lancet, November 1992) showed a

36-52 percent increase in mortality from breast cancer in women 40-49 who had

annual mammograms. 8, 9 The Swedish Malmo Screening Trial (as reported in The

British Medical Journal, 1988) which also included tens of thousands of women,

showed 29 percent greater mortality from breast cancer in women under 55 who

were regularly screened with mammograms. (Studies of women 50-59 showed no

difference in breast cancer mortality between women who did and women who didn't

have regular screening mammograms.)

Critics of these studies claim that newer mammographic equipment uses less

radiation. This belies the point that mammograms are inherently dangerous.

Orthodox medicine tells me again and again to overlook the harm that it has done

to women and promises a future where the machines will be better calibrated and

safer. But what of the harm that's been, and is now, done?

Mammographic screening is not and never will be a safe way to find breast

cancer. Although safer after menopause than before, mammography is never without

risk entirely.

Why I haven't had a baseline mammogram

The idea behind having a baseline mammogram-that there will be a norm to refer

back to-is erroneous. Breast tissues are constantly changing as menstrual,

ovulatory, pregnancy, lactational, and menopausal hormones change. Science, the

constant straight line, meets woman, the ever-changing spiral. And younger

breast tissue is especially sensitive to radiation. According to J. W. Gofman

(M.D., Ph.D., authority on dangers of radiation exposure), a 35-year-old woman

whose normal risk of developing breast cancer is 1 in 1500 increases it to 1 in

660 by exposing herself to the radiation of a baseline mammogram. The National

Women's Health Network says baseline mammograms should be abolished.10

If you've already had a baseline mammogram and now feel worried, make yourself

a soup of lentils (to restore damaged DNA to normalcy), seaweed (to remove

radioactive isotopes), and carrots (to support your immune system). Season with

miso and tamari (to stop the promotion of cancer cells), and thyme, rosemary,

and garlic (to further strengthen the immune system). Breathe in, relax, don't

worry.

Mammograms aren't safe

Professor , Toronto National Cancer Institute, says cancer cells

may be squeezed into the bloodstream under the pressure of the mammographic

plates.11 Screening mammograms are unsafe other ways, too: they expose sensitive

breast tissues to radiation, and they increase your chances of having a biopsy

and being overtreated for carcinoma in situ.

Radiation Dangers

Scientists agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. Cellular DNA in the

breast is more easily damaged by very small doses of radiation than thyroid

tissue or bone marrow; in fact, breast cells are second only to fetal tissues in

sensitivity to radiation. And the younger the breast cells, the more easily

their DNA is damaged by radiation. As an added risk, one percent of American

women carry a hard-to-detect oncogene which is triggered by radiation; a single

mammogram increases their risk of breast cancer by a factor of 4-6 times.12

The usual dose of radiation during a mammographic x-ray is from 0.25 to1 rad

with the very best equipment; that's 1-4 rads per screening mammogram (two views

each of two breasts). And, according to Epstein, M.D., of the University

of Chicago's School of Public Health, the dose can be ten times more than that .

Sister lie Bertell-one of the world's most respected authorities on the

dangers of radiation-says one rad increases breast cancer risk one percent and

is the equivalent of one year's natural aging.13

If a woman has yearly mammograms from age 55 to age 75, she will receive a

minimum of 20 rads of radiation. For comparison, women who survived the atomic

bomb blasts in Hiroshima or Nagasaki absorbed 35 rads. Though one large dose of

radiation can be more harmful than many small doses, it is important to remember

that damage from radiation is cumulative. Many women born in the 1930s and

'40s-who are now considering the benefits of postmenopausal mammographic

screening-have already absorbed quite a bit of radioactivity into their breast

tissues from fallout from the atomic bomb tests of the 1950s. (See page18.)

The American Cancer Society claims that the radiation danger from a screening

mammogram is no more than that caused by natural radiation in the environment.

Not so. The amount of radiation from even one breast x-ray is 11.9 times the

yearly dose absorbed by the entire body, according to Hunt, former

saleswoman for an x-ray manufacturing company, UCLA Medical Center graduate, and

senior staff x-ray technologist for 20 years.14 (See page 18 for a list of rads

absorbed while skiing in Denver, flying in an airplane, and other activities

often cited as comparable to mammographic screening.)

A study published in the October 20, 1993 issue of Journal of the National

Cancer Institute found a statistically significant increase in the incidence of

breast cancer following radiation treatment of various benign breast diseases

even among women older than 40 at the time of the first treatment.

Treatment Dangers

You increase your risk of being overtreated for breast cancer whenever you have

a screening mammogram. Eight out of ten masses detected by screening mammogram

are false alarms, but if something is seen in your mammogram you'll be urged to

undergo a biopsy.

Screening mammograms lead to overtreatment

Many of the " cancers " found by mammographic examination are carcinoma in situ.

At least 75 percent of these will remain non-invasive and can be removed

surgically, if desired, at any time, or simply left alone. Of the 25 percent of

in situ cancers that do become invasive, the number that metastasize is quite

small (and unmetastasized breast cancer rarely kills).

Early detection of tiny in situ tumors often leads to orthodox treatments

which do not prolong life and which can cause immune system suppression, severe

drug reactions, even death. Of course, early detection can also lead to

life-enhancing wholistic treatments.

Screening mammograms don't increase your chances of being cured . . . or of

surviving longer

Early diagnosis of breast cancer by mammographic screening produces higher

rates of cure and longer survival times without actually increasing the number

of women cured nor lengthening their lives. How can that be? It's sleight of

hand with numbers.

Survival, when it comes to breast cancer statistics, is defined as being alive

five years after the diagnosis of cancer. Cure is defined as being disease-free

five years after diagnosis. A women who dies of breast cancer more than five

years after her diagnosis can still be included in statistics as a " cure. "

A woman with a slow-growing metastasizing breast cancer will live, on the

average, 15 years after the cancer's inception.15 A mammogram can detect a

slow-growing breast cancer when it is about eight years old. (15 - 8 = 7 more

years to live.) If this woman dies seven years after her diagnosis, she will be

counted as " cured " because she lived for more than 5 years.

The same slow-growing metastasizing breast cancer will be 11 or 12 years from

its inception when noticed by a woman who neither touches her breasts regularly

nor has mammograms. (Women who do regular breast self-exam or breast

self-massage usually notice a slow-growing cancer nine years after its

inception, just one doubling bigger than visible to a mammogram.16) This woman

will live as long as the woman whose cancer was discovered by screening

mammogram, but won't be " cured " because she didn't live for five more years. (15

- 11 = 4 years).

The cure is only a statistic. There is no difference in the number of years

lived after the inception of the cancer, no difference in the length of life,

only a difference in number of years lived after diagnosis.

Mammograms don't find cancer before it metastasizes

Breast cancers generally don't begin to metastasize until they contain at least

one million cells. It takes an ordinary breast cancer-one that doubles every 100

days-about six years to grow that large.17 (Some very slow breast cancers take

20 years to accumulate a million cells. A very fast breast cancer can get there

in a year.) But a million cells is still only as big as the dot at the end of

this sentence. And that's undetectable by either touch or mammogram. (But not by

intuition. I've met several women who " felt " their cancers at this tiny size but

couldn't convince anyone they had cancer because the medical diagnostic

equipment, though technologically advanced, wasn't as perceptive as their inner

wisdom.)

By the time a cancer is big enough to be seen on a mammogram, it's usually 8

years old, has 500 million cells, and is approximately one-quarter inch (half a

centimeter) long.18 It has been large enough to metastasize, if it is going to,

for a year or more. (Some breast cancers never metastasize, no matter how large

they get.)

Aren't mammograms life saving for women over 55?

In several studies, yearly mammograms of women aged 55 and older reduced breast

cancer mortality by one-third. But this doesn't mean any one woman's risk is

reduced by one-third according to Dr. Skrabenek, a critic of mass

screening. Furthermore, the women enrolled in these very successful mammographic

studies received regular physical examination of their breasts, which-by itself,

without risk-reduces breast cancer mortality. The vast majority of breast

cancers found in older women are slow-growing, non-metastasizing, and not

life-threatening, no matter when they're found.

Yearly screening mammograms aren't cost effective to society nor are they safe

environmentally

The Southern Medical Journal reports that the cost effectiveness (defined as

the number of dollars spent so one person can live one year longer) of

mammograms for women under 55 is $82,000.19 A recent analysis found that it cost

$195,000 to detect one breast cancer using screening mammograms.

Dr. of Vancouver General Hospital estimates that the cost of

saving one life by mass screening is $1.25 million (Canadian).

The mammography industry could gross $1 billion per year if every woman aged

40-49 was screened yearly. Less than 10 percent of all breast cancers occur in

women that age.

Choosing screening mammograms means I choose to contribute to the stream of

low-level radioactive waste leaving hospitals. Will my mammogram increase my

daughter's risk of developing breast cancer by increasing the amount of

radioactivity in her environment? What is the real cost of this choice?

Is there a less risky way to participate in screening mam-mography?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as well as the

national health plans of England, Holland, Italy, and Sweden, recommend

screening mammography no more than every two years and only after menopause.

Several studies show no advantage to yearly mammograms. Once every two or three

years confers the same decrease in five-year mortality, with less radiation

hazard to individuals and society, and at far less cost.

Mammograms distract us from the need for societal commitment to true

prevention

Many of the cancers found by mammographic screening are in situ cancers. Women

with in situ cancers rarely die from them. With or without early detection and

treatment, 93 percent survive more than five years. When in situ breast cancers

are found by mammogram, treated, and added to the statistical base, breast

cancer cure rates and longevity statistics improve. No wonder mammography is

praised. It has done what decades of research into cures for breast cancer have

failed to do: make it appear that there is some progress in stemming the tide of

breast cancer. But finding and treating an ever-increasing number of breast

cancers isn't real progress; commiting to reducing chemical and radioactive

pollution is.

Are there other ways to find early-stage breast cancers?

In addition to physical examination and breast self-massage, thermography and

ultrasound are safe tests available to women who wish to avoid mammograms.

Thermography gives a picture of the heat patterns in the breasts (cancers are

hotter than the surrounding tissues). Ultrasound bounces sound waves off the

breast tissues to measure their density (cancer is denser than the surrounding

tissues). Other techniques used to image breast tissues, such as digital

mammography and scintimammography rely on radioactivity and are inherently

unsafe.20-22

If You Decide to Have a Mammogram

o Get the best, even if it means a long journey.

o Go where they specialize, preferably where they do at least 20 mammograms a

day.

o Be sure the facility is accredited by the American College of Radiology.

o Insist on personnel who specialize in mammograms. (Taking and reading

mammograms are skills that require intensive training and a lot of practice.)

o Ask how old the equipment is. Newer equipment exposes the breasts to less

radiation. A dedicated unit (one specifically for mammograms) is best.

o Ask how they ensure quality control. When was their unit calibrated?

o Load your blood with carotenes for a week before the mammogram to prevent

radiation damage to your DNA.

o Expect to be cold and uncomfortable during the mammogram, but do say

something if you're being hurt.

o The more compressed the breast tissue, the clearer the mammogram. (But

pressure may spread cancer cells if they're present.)

o If your breasts are tender, reschedule. During your fertile years, schedule

mammograms for 7-10 days after your menstrual flow begins.

o Don't wear antiperspirant containing aluminum; it can interfere with the

imaging process. (Those clear stones do contain aluminum, as do most commercial

antiperspirants.)

o If you want another opinion, you'll need the original mammographic films,

not copies. (X-ray facilities only keep films for 7 years.)

o Get your doctor to agree, in writing, before the procedure, to give you a

copy of your mammogram. The U.S. Public Health Service advises women to ask for

written results from a mammogram.

o Given the high percentage of " false normal " mammograms, if you think you

have cancer, trust your intuition.

o Remove radioactive isotopes from your body with burdock root, seaweed, or

miso.

Mammograms don't promote breast health.

Breast self-massage, breast self-exam, and lifestyle changes do.

Resources o " Mammography Screening: A Decision-Making Guide, " $6 from the

Center for Medical Consumers, 237 St., New York, NY 10012

o Comprehensive statement on the risks and benefits of screening mammography

from National Women's Health Network, 514 Tenth Street, N.W., Suite 400,

Washington, DC 20004

o Information on mammograms from the Women's Cancer Resource Center, 3023

Shattuck Ave, Berkeley, CA 94705

o For information on accredited mammography facilities: Call 1-800-4-CANCER,

the National Cancer Institute's information line.

Grandmother Speaks...

The Propensity To Invade

by Fields

The Propensity To Invade

by Fields

Just reported on tv news was a new high tech cancer screening method designed

to detect breast cancer. In case you thought that they were finally giving

thermography its' just due, think again. The latest gadget released upon

women at Beth Israel Hospital is the BSGI (Breast Specific Gamma Imaging). It is

reported to find cancers previously missed by mammogram (false negatives) and

reduce the false positives of MRI.

It is " ideal " for women with dense breast tissue, implants, or scar tissue

from previous breast surgery. The technique uses a camera placed against a

woman's breast to take a picture of cancer cells that " light up " due to their

increased blood supply and increased energy production.

Here is the problem. In order for the cells to " light up " the woman must

receive an injection of a " tiny " amount of RADIATION intravenously (in her

bloodstream). It is also recommended that the test be done in conjunction with a

mammogram, thus compounding her radiation exposure.

Thermography also recognizes and detects the increased blood supply of cancer

cells as well as the rapid energy production by the heat that they release. No

radiation is involved, and no invasion into the body is necessary. It is 100%

safe.

No amount of radiation can be considered safe. " Tiny " amounts, or low dose

radiation exposure has been demonstrated to cause unrepairable double strand

breaks of DNA in breast tissue.

Thermography was FDA approved as a breast cancer screening technique in 1982.

Doctors then didn't understand that things other than cancer could cause

hyperthermia (excess heat production), and because they also didn't understand

that thermography was indeed detecting cancers earlier than a mammogram could

confirm, the technique was abandoned in favor of mammogram. Many of those women

with suspicious thermographys unconfirmed by mammography, eventually went on to

be diagnosed with breast cancer.

The others who did not were simply demonstrating their unique thermal pattern.

A second comparative thermography would have indicated that because there would

not have been any change in that pattern.Make no mistake, breast cancer, and its

surrounding tests and treatments is a huge money making industry.

Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and equipment manufacturers

should stop putting profits and fear of liability above safety and allow women

the right of choice. The Hippocratic Oath states " Above All Do No Harm " . Screen

first with the only 100% safe method. Save healthy womens' breasts from the

potential and known hazards associated with radiation exposure.

This is rapidly becoming a women's rights issue. We have the right to receive

accurate information about all of the options available for breast cancer

screening so that we can make informed decions about our health.

Since to date we cannot count on the established authorities for this

information, please send this document to your friends, doctors, congresspeople,

and anyone you think should know.

Corroborating evidence can be found at newdimensionthermography.com.

Stay The Course,

Fields

www.newdimensionthermography.com.

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS

FACTS OF LIFE

WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW COULD HURT YOU

· Mammography does not prevent breast cancer.

Your best protection is prevention.

· Mammography is not early detection.

It’s ability to identify cancer is so late that drastic

intervention is the only option.

· Mammogram in pre-menopausal women can be up to 89%

inaccurate (false positive).

This results in unnecessary procedures, emotional and physical

trauma.

· Tumors are frequently located in the upper outer aspects

of the breasts.

Mammogram can’t screen this area and thus often misses these

(false negative).

· Mammography screening has not significantly reduced

breast cancer deaths.

Authors of major research concluded no benefit for screening

mammography.

· Menopausal status, not age is the determining factor in

mammogram’s accuracy.

Tissue density prevents many cancers from being detected by

mammography.

· Breast cancer grows much faster in pre-menopausal women.

Hormonal influence, including HRT, causes tissue density.

· Mammography’s radiation risk is 5 times more hazardous

than originally reported.

It’s cancer causing ability equals that of the radiation exposure

of an atomic bomb.

· The radiation exposure of one mammogram is equal to 1,000

times that of a chest X-ray.

1 rad per breast is emitted. Each rad increases the risk for

cancer by 1%.

· The breast compression during mammography can spread

cancer,

by rupturing small blood vessels surrounding any early, as yet

undetected cancers.

· Mammogram is detecting localized cancers (DCIS), 80% of

which never activate.

Thermography monitoring can insure their inactivity.

· Detecting pre-cancer cell changes(dysplasia) increases

your treatment options.

Breast cancer can be prevented at this stage.

· Thermography has the only current technology to detect

breast dysplasia.

It is painless, safe, and 99% accurate in determining if a tumor

is benign or malignant.

· Breast cancer has been slowly growing from 8-10 years

prior to mammogram detection.

Thermography can detect in year 2 of its development, thus

increasing treatment options.

· Breast thermography was FDA approved in 1982.

It was formally a classified technology used by the United States

Military.

· Countries of Europe, Canada, & Australia screen healthy

breasts with thermography

Mammography is appropriately used to direct biopsy.

· Breast thermography can rule out the need for biopsy if

mammogram results are not clear.

Over1 million breast biopsies are performed annually in the U.S.

with 75-80% benign.

· Breast thermography can be used during pregnancy,

nursing, & for women with implants.

Mammography is contraindicated in these circumstances.

· Starting breast thermography at age 25 gives you the

earliest detection for prevention.

Breast cancer begins up to 15 years prior to causing death.

· Starting breast thermography at any age gives you the

safest and earliest detection possible.

· The proper screening hierarchy is thermography,

sonography, mammography, biopsy.

This approach limits radiation exposure to only the high risk.

Only biopsy can diagnose.

· Breast thermography is affordable, usually only about

$150.00.

· Breast thermography is reimbursable by some insurers.

Even if it isn’t covered, it is well worth the expense.

· Thermography can also be used to detect heart disease and

stroke risk.

It’s ability to detect inflammation in the carotid arteries makes

this possible.

· You may have to educate your doctor about thermography.

newdimensionthermography.com, meditherm.com, & preventbc.com,

have references.

Mammography Claim: Low-dose radiation is " safe "

Truth: Screening mammograms are a health hazard.

The results of a 2004 study revealed that the risk of low-dose radiation DNA

damage from the mammogram machine is considerably higher (up to 5X) than

currently suspected. (see studies). How does that translate into real life? The

pre-menopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation. Under current

guidelines, each mammogram exposure increases cancer risk by 1%. Risk is even

higher for baseline screening at younger ages. This amount of risk is considered

so acceptable that it's not even mentioned to the patient. Multiply that times

5 . Now we know that if a woman has had 10 mammograms she is at 50% higher risk.

How acceptable is this? Add other risk factors like smoking or family history

and it becomes it evident why the cancer rate is increasing.

PREVENTION OF BREAST CANCER

Can breast cancer be prevented?

An excerpt from chapter One of Breast Cancer? Breast Health! by Susun Weed

Available at www.Ash-Tree-Publishing.com

Sometimes it seems that every magazine, newspaper, radio show, and piece of

mail has a headline declaring that every woman’s risk of developing breast

cancer is increasing. There is a numbing feeling of inevitability in these

pronouncements. More and more women think about breast cancer as a when rather

than an if.

It’s true that there’s more breast cancer now than ever before, that between

1979 and 1986 the incidence of invasive breast cancer in the United States

increased 29 percent among white women and 41 percent among black women, and

incidence of all breast cancers doubled. It’s true that the percentage of women

dying from breast cancer has remained virtually unchanged over the past 50

years, and that every 12 minutes throughout the last half of the twentieth

century another woman died of breast cancer.

And it’s true that breast cancer is the disease that women fear more than any

other, that breast cancer is the biggest killer of all women aged 35 to 54, and

that of the 2.5 million women currently diagnosed with breast cancer, half will

be dead within ten years.

These facts frighten me, and they also make me angry. My studies spanning 25

years and many disciplines have convinced me that the majority of breast cancers

are causally related to the high levels of radiation and chemicals released into

our air, water, soil, and food over the past 50 years. United States government

researchers estimate that 80 percent of all cancers are environmentally linked.

What can be done? The answer isn’t as simple as a yearly mammogram. That may

help detect breast cancer, but it won’t prevent it. To prevent breast cancer we

need to take individual and collective action.

Effective action requires understanding the causes of breast cancer and what

decreases breast cancer risk. But there are few conclusive answers to these

queries, partly because most research focuses on eliminating breast cancer

after—not before—it occurs. Science has validated so few risk factors for breast

cancer that 70 percent of the women diagnosed with breast cancer have “no

identifiable risk factors.”

Unfortunately, our sex, age, reproductive history, family history, exposure to

radiation (such as fallout from above-ground atomic bomb tests), race, culture,

and height are beyond our control. When we’re told these are the only risk

factors, we can be left with feelings of hopelessness and panic.

But when we include risk factors that are considered “not well

substantiated”—but which are clearly contributing to breast cancer

incidence—including ingestion of and exposure to prescription hormones,

hormone-mimicking organochlorines, prescription drugs, petrochemicals, and

electromagnetic fields, as well as unwise lifestyle choices such as smoking

tobacco, drinking alcohol immoderately, wearing a bra, or not exercising, then

we can find many ways to lower breast cancer risk. No need to panic.

We can help prevent breast cancer on an individual basis by buying organically

grown food, filtering our water, building powerful immunity, living wisely and

vigorously, being in touch with our breasts, using natural remedies for

menopausal problems, and by paying attention to our Wise Healer Within.

But there’s a limit to the control that any one woman has over her exposure to

petrochemicals, radiation, and other environmental cancer-inciters. Limiting the

production and discharge of substances that initiate and promote cancer is

collective work. When our individual acts are combined with the acts of others,

we can achieve the envisioned social change. For example, as I saw more and more

evidence that chlorine residues from papermaking contribute to breast cancer, I

began to ask for chlorine-free paper from my book printer. They went from

amazement and puzzlement at my request to contracting with a new paper supplier

who can provide them with elemental chlorine-free paper. (I’m not the only one

asking, you see.)

Whether you think your risk of breast cancer is high, low, or average, there

are things you can do, individually and with others, to help yourself stay free

of breast cancer and to help stop the epidemic of breast cancer, too. (What is

your risk of breast cancer? See “Risk Assessment,” page 317, to educate your

guess.)

Since 1950 the incidence of breast cancer in the U.S. has increased by 53

percent, according to Brinker, chair of President Clinton’s Special

Commission on Breast Cancer.

The best way to protect yourself from environmental factors which may cause or

encourage the disease is to start. The younger you are when you make changes

aimed at prevention, the more likely they are to be effective. (Remember that

breast cancer may develop for as long as twenty years before detectable by

mammogram).

Start breast screening with thermography as soon as possible and continue

annual screening. Thermography can detect the cell changes and new blood vessel

formation that precede breast cancer. If these changes are detected, all

treatment options are on the table to reverse the process and effectively

prevent the disease.

Reduce dietary fat. High rates of breast cancer are apparently related to

diets high in fat (meat and dairy products). Substitute foods high in fiber

(fresh, organic fruit, vegetables and whole grains). Aim for three to five

servings of fruit and vegetables daily with 2 being fruit and three being

vegetables.

The breast is highly vulnerable to cell damage from x-rays, especially during

puberty and pregnancy. Lead aprons should be used during dental X-rays.

Pre-menopausal women should avoid radiation from screening mammogram. Single as

well as cumulative exposure even to low dose radiation has been shown to

increase breast cancer incidence. (See message below regarding mammographic

radiation).

Don’t smoke, and avoid smoke filled rooms. Inhalation of cigarette smoke has

been associated with many cancers including breast, lung, and cervical.

Limit or eliminate alcohol. Recent studies indicate that women tolerate

alcohol intake poorer than men. More than 4 servings of alcohol per week have

been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.

Reduce excess weight. Many studies point to high levels of estrogen as a

precipitating factor in breast cancer. There is evidence that fat tissue

manufactures its own estrogen, which may be dangerous to a woman who is very

large or who already has elevated estrogen levels.

Avoid hormone replacement therapy at menopause and any other medication with

estrogen such as DES (a morning after pill).

Engage in regular exercise. It aids in the elimination of bodily toxins which

accumulate in the colon, liver, lymph system and increase all cancer risk..

Exercise also helps to develop assertiveness, release anger and encourage

forgiveness.

Reduce sugar consumption. Sugar and simple carbohydrates which rapidly

metabolize into sugar increase the acidity of the blood. Excess blood acidity

has been indicated in the incidence of all cancers.

Love your liver. Your detox organ rids the body of toxic waste, balances

hormones, regulates blood sugar levels, and has many other functions. Alcohol,

cigarettes, pesticides, preservatives, food dyes, constipation and other hazards

overload and/or damage liver function.

Increase dietary anti-oxidants. Foods containing vitamins A, B, C, beta

carotene, E, Coenzyme Q10 and others prevent and/or destroy tumors.

Drink adequate filtered or clean spring water and include flaxseed, sea

vegetables, garlic, onions, olive oil, turmeric, brown rice, and rosemary in

your diet.

Reduce salt, nitrites, smoked and pickled foods such as bacon.

Seek counseling from health care practitioners knowledgeable in nutrition,

herbology, homeopathy, lymph drainage, castor oil packs, dry skin brushing,

breast self massage, and/or acupuncture

Reduce stress. Excess stress reduces immunity. Prayer, meditation,

affirmation, imagery and visualization used regularly activate one’s capacity to

heal by increasing melatonin levels and enhance immunity.

Create a life filled with joy, meaning, purpose, and gratitude and the time to

enjoy it!

Breast self-massage is simple.

Breast self-massage is pleasurable.

Breast self-massage helps prevent cancer as well as detect it.

Breast self-massage helps keep breast skin supple.

Breast self-massage adds resiliency to breast tissue.

Breast self-massage is a way to be intimate with your breasts.

Breast self-massage is a piece of women’s wisdom.

Breast self-massage is safe.

Breast self-massage is free.

Many of the women I’ve talked with say they don’t do breast self-exams, though

most think they ought to. No one wants to look for (or, heaven forbid, find!)

cancer. We’ve been trained to avoid danger, and looking for cancer sounds like

looking for trouble. Our bodies are influenced by what we think, so how can it

be safe to spend time every month doing a breast self-exam, worrying if we’re

about to find a lump? But we feel guilty when we don’t.

And what are we supposed to feel when we touch our breasts anyway? They feel

full of lumps! Most of us aren’t sure how to touch or examine our breasts or

what we’d do if we did feel something truly suspicious. Our guilt and confusion

make it all even more complex.

Breast self-massage offers a way to let go of this tension and get in touch

with yourself. This soothing, nurturing self-massage is a pleasurable and

relaxing way to get to know your breasts. It avoids the worry of checking for

cancer, while providing an excellent early-warning system should cancer arise.

Regular, loving touching of our breasts allows us to recognize normal breast

changes without fear, and gives us time to respond thoughtfully to abnormal

changes. Breast self-massage is also a quiet, focused time that allows the Wise

Healer Within (see page 83) to alert us to any changes that require our

attention.

Infused (not essential) herbal oils are an important element of breast

self-massage. When herbs are infused into oil, active plant components are

liberated and can be massaged into breast tissue— where they help reverse

abnormal cellular changes such as hyperplasia, atypia, precancers, and in situ

cancers. It’s fast and fun to make your own infused oils (see page 297), or you

can buy them (see page 75). But if you don’t have any, plain olive oil works

fine.

If you already know breast self-exam techniques, let them inform your

fingertips during your breast self-massage. If this is all new to you, take a

few months to learn about your breasts with self-massage before doing breast

self-exam. They complement each other: Let the pleasure of the massage infuse

the exam, and let the effectiveness of the exam inform the massage.

When should I do my breast self-massage?

Now. Anytime. All the time. Sure, your breasts are less lumpy at some times of

the month. But you can do breast self-massage whenever you want, even if you’re

lumpy. If the best time for you to pay attention to yourself is when you bleed,

because that’s when you take time to be alone, then that’s the time to do breast

self-massage. You could do it every week and get to know how your breasts change

with your cycle and with the moon, but most likely you’ll do it every month. I

like to do my breast self-massage when the moon is new.

How do I do breast self-massage?

First, make or buy some infused herbal oils or ointments. You’ll want several,

as each offers unique benefits.

Then, create a comfortable, private place where you can lean back: in a warm

bath or propped up with cushions in bed. (Protect linens and clothing from oil

stains.) Arrange yourself there, bare-breasted, with your infused herbal oils

close at hand.

Let your eyelids fall. Put your hands over your heart and hum. Cup your breasts

with your hands and hum. Imagine or visualize energy streaming out of your

nipples. Allow your breasts and heart to open and flow as you hum.

Open your eyes. Transfer some herbal oil or ointment to your palms. Rub your

hands together briskly until they feel warm. Place them on either side of one

breast and hum.

Cup your fingers alongside or under your breast, thumbs touching and up as high

on the chest as possible. (If your breasts are very large, rest the right breast

in the right palm and massage with the left thumb, starting in the armpit and

moving toward the center of the chest.) Press in and slide your thumbs down

toward the nipple, pressing the breast tissue into your fingers and palms.

Stretch your thumbs up toward the collarbone again, but slightly farther apart,

press in and slide down.

Continue until your thumbs are as far apart as possible (the middle of your

chest and your armpit). Repeat, gradually increasing pressure, but only as long

as it feels good.

Caution: There is a slight possibility of spreading breast cancer through

vigorous massage, rough handling, or very deep pressure.

Transfer more oil or ointment to your palms and rub your hands together. Cup

your breast as before, thumbs up and touching. Hum. Repeat the previous pattern,

but break up the stroke: Instead of a long, slow, smooth stroke, use your thumbs

to make a lot of overlapping short strokes, gradually moving down the chest. Try

various degrees of pressure.

Raise the arm of the breast you’re massaging, and put your hand behind you or

on your head. If your breast leans to the outside, prop a pillow under that

shoulder or lean over. Cover your breast with your free hand and hum.

Dip your fingers into your oil or ointment and, starting in your armpit, press

the fingerpads of your first two or three fingers down with enough pressure to

hold the skin, and make a small circle. Don’t let your fingers slide over the

skin. Keep making

little circles (with enough pressure to feel the underlying structures) as you

trace an imaginary spiral from your armpit around and around your breast,

growing ever smaller until you reach your nipple. (If it is difficult or

impossible for you to use your fingerpads, use your palm.) Cover your breast

with your hand and hum.

Curl your fingers into your armpit and gently grasp the ridge of lymph-rich

tissues and muscles that extend from the shoulder down into the breast. Move up

and down this ridge several times, using small squeezes or long glides or little

spirals or your own strokes.

As you touch your breasts, imagine or visualize your fingertips emitting

healing pink sparkles that embrace and nourish your breasts. Let your fingerpads

sink deeply into your breasts. Allow any held distress to be soothed by the balm

of the infused herbal oil/ointment. Let overactive energy be calmed by the

rhythm of your fingers circling, circling, spiraling, spiraling.

Apply more oil or ointment with your fingerpads, making large gliding circles

from midchest to under your breast, up toward the armpit and over and around,

again, and again, with a steady rhythm.

When you’re done massaging your breast, close your eyes and relax. Hum. Call to

your Wise Healer Within as you hum.

Massage your other breast, starting from the beginning: Put your hands over

your heart. Hum. Cup your breasts. Hum. (Is there a difference between the

breast that has already been massaged and the one that hasn’t yet?) Rub your

oily hands briskly together; hold either side of your breast and hum. Extend

your thumbs and massage as before, including all of the previous strokes and

ending with your eyes closed, relaxing deeply and allowing yourself to contact

and listen to your Wise Healer Within.

Afterwards . . .

After your breast self-massage, take a moment to record your experience. This

will help you learn more quickly what’s normal for you. You can draw a map of

your breasts to help you remember what you’ve felt. Try using colors. Write down

any messages offered to you by your breasts or your Wise Healer Within. If you

like, make up a little song to hum during your massage. The keynote in breast

self-massage is pleasure.

---------------------------------

Mammography Claim: Low-dose radiation is " safe "

Truth: Screening mammograms are a health hazard.

The results of a 2004 study revealed that the risk of low-dose radiation DNA

damage from the mammogram machine is considerably higher (up to 5X) than

currently suspected. (see studies). How does that translate into real life? The

pre-menopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation. Under current

guidelines, each mammogram exposure increases cancer risk by 1%. Risk is even

higher for baseline screening at younger ages. This amount of risk is considered

so acceptable that it's not even mentioned to the patient. Multiply that times

5 . Now we know that if a woman has had 10 mammograms she is at 50% higher risk.

How acceptable is this? Add other risk factors like smoking or family history

and it becomes it evident why the cancer rate is increasing.

“You begin your walk toward death the moment you are conceived. Your life is

your walk toward death. And each day your life brings you one day closer to

death. Every day you have the opportunity to ask yourself: ‘How will I walk

today on my way to death? How will I live? By others’ fears? Or by my own unique

truth? In beauty, in joy, with awareness? From my heart?’

“Consciously or unconsciously, with acceptance or denial, every day you move

one day nearer to your death. Is today a good day to die? Are you complete? Have

you lived fully? Have you honored your dreams? Can you look death in the eye

without regret?

“Death is not honorable in your dominant Western culture. You set death apart

from life, portray death as if it were to be feared, as if it were opposed to

life. No, precious GrandDaughter, no!

“Death and life are lovers. They are dancing partners. One does not exist

without the other. Giving birth gives death, for death comes to all who are

born. Death makes way for life, for is it not said that all who die will be

reborn? Death and life in loving embrace; death and life dancing. For there is

only the dance, only the walk, the path, your way from birth to death and back

to birth again.

“Yes, GrandDaughter, your death is certain, but not predictable. Your death is

known, yet it honors chaos; it neither avoids you when you would hold it off,

nor arrives docilely when you call. There is no medical miracle, no right

thinking, no correct eating, no magic, no saintliness, no bargain with God – or

Goddess – which can avert or avoid the truth of your death.

“Your death waits patiently at the end of your path, around a bend you haven’t

noticed, hidden from sight. Your death. Your Way. In your own time.

“So many of your modern healers, alternative and orthodox alike, fear death. A

diagnosis of cancer is made, and death becomes the enemy. Fear of death – rather

than love of life – chooses the treatment. When you remember that every path

ends in death, you can begin to dance with your death; your choices multiply and

you find your way through the fear. You find ways to love your life without

clinging. You find ways to honor your death.

“Yes, we know, death still calls forth fear in you. It is hard to honor it. Let

us hold you, GrandDaughter. Rest in our gentle strength. Let us teach you to

embrace your fear, to embrace the truth of your fear: with death your body

ceases to be you.

“How can you honor your fear of death? Dance in the space between knowing and

not knowing, between being and not being, between living and dying. We are here

to hold you in your confusion. We will hold you in the midst of chaos. We will

hold you safely, we will hold you close, now and whenever you call.

“We who are steeped with the wisdom of the years, we who have seen the

spiraling dance of life and death, we have something to show you. Come with us

now, GrandDaughter. Hold our hands and leap off the cliff. Fall with us. Give

yourself to space. And look! A spiraling flow of sparkling joy catches you up

and carries you off.

Let go into the sensation of weightlessness, of being supported by a gently

turning, vibrating spiral of particles that catch the light. A pulsing spiral

with no beginning and no end. A spiral that holds you tightly, yet always allows

you total freedom.

“Relax for a moment in the All. Reverberate with the silence. Let yourself move

in perfection, expanding and growing, into life, into death, and, when you wish,

back into life again. "

Excerpt from Breast Cancer? Breast Health the Wise Woman Way by Susun Weed

---------------------------------

HEART DISEASE AND STROKE PREVENTION

In order to prevent heart disease and stroke we must understand what causes

them.

Both happen when tissues die as a result of oxygen and nutrient depravation

caused by narrowed or blocked arteries. When the blockage is in the coronary

arteries that service the heart, heart attack results. When the blockage is in

the arteries leading to the brain, stroke is the result.

The narrowing is a progressive process called atherosclerosis, and stems from

blood vessel damage. The vessels are damaged by toxins in the blood (free

radicals) derived from poor diet, pesticides, smoking, alcohol, viruses,

infections, allergies, stress and the normal results of metabolism.

The damaged blood vessels form scars and then cholesterol is sent as a repair

agent. The combination of the scarring and fibrous fatty tissue lesions and the

cholesterol deposits sent for repair harden, thicken, and narrow the vessels.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

• Know the status of your blood vessels by having a

thermographic scan of your head and neck. A thermographic image shows the areas

of diminished energy and blood flow and thus provides an early indicator of

heart disease, via atherosclerosis, before it produces a devastating heart

attack or stroke.

• Maintain a proper diet. A diet high in low-density

lipoprotein (LDL) is associated with coronary heart disease risk, whereas HDLs

protect against heart disease. Saturated fat is the chief source of LDL. Avoid

fried and processed foods as well as those with high sugar and salt content.

Avoid free radicals by including foods high in anti-oxidants (vitamins

A,C,E,CoQ10, etc.) Include garlic, foods high in calcium, and substitute olive

oil for other cooking oils, butter, and margarine.

• Preventing or treating high blood pressure will reduce

the risk of both heart attack and stroke.

• Regular exercise reduces the risk of heart attack,

lowers blood pressure and, in some cases, raises beneficial HDL cholesterol

levels. Women who are sedentary have three times the risk of developing heart

disease than those who exercise even moderately three times a week.

• Excess weight reduction in combination with exercise can

be an important strategy for reducing the risk of cardiovascular and circulatory

disease. The excess weight increases blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar

levels, which increases the risk of heart disease and stroke.

• Reduce stress. All stress is implicated in

cardiovascular disease. The multiple role demands on women may increase the

incidence of heart disease. Changing one’s life circumstances may not always be

possible, but the effects can be moderated by using stress reduction techniques.

• Consider the wisdom of taking hormonal contraceptives

over the age of forty. The risk of heart disease is five times that of women

under forty and seven times the risk of stroke as younger women. The addition of

other risk factors, such as family history significantly raise the hazard.

• Get regular medical examinations. Knowing the status of

your blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol levels is imperative in the

prevention of heart attack and stroke.

SYMPTOMS OF HEART ATTACK

SYMPTOMS OF STROKE

Chest pain and shortness of breath

Numbness, tingling, weakness or loss strength in an arm, leg, or side

of the face or difficulty walking

Irregular pulse more than 2 mints.

Blindness in one or both eyes

Sweating, dizziness or faintness

Speech problems

Severe pain in the jaw, neck, shoulder

Intense, mounting headache lasting many hours.

Severe feelings of indigestion that do not go away with an antacid or

burping

Good health to everyone!

--Elena