Re: Mammography

[Guest guest]

Arlyn,

I very much appreciate your critical thinking skills. You are

such a welcome addition to this list. I wish that I could find

people such as you to help with the discourses at our Retreat Center

in the San Diego coastal area.

At 01:22 PM 5/4/2008, you wrote:

>How should women screen for breast cancer?

>

>1. Mammography - surely will cause all women to die according to the

>die-hards. Though digital mammograms use less radiation. Not good for

>dense breast tissue.

>2. Thermography - no one knows about it and it isn't available in the

>majority of cities. To be used in conjuction with other screening

>tools.

>3. Ultrasound - May not pick up microcalcifications. Thus not picking

>up many early cancers. To be used in conjuction with other screening

>tools.

>4. MRIs - Not covered by most insurances for screening. Too many false

>positives so many doctors will not use them. To be used in conjuction

>with other screening tools.

>5. Self-breast exams - Many women never have lumps until the cancer is

>very far advanced.

>

>I feel that all women need to make the best choices they can for

>themselves. No one should be made to feel poorly if they have chosen

>mammography or not. There are, unfortunately, no clear answers.

>

>Even living a cancer-free lifestyle will not assure anyone of remaining

>cancer free.

>

>So, do your best. Make the best choices you can.

>

>ar

[Guest guest]

There are some progressive doctors that believe that breast cancer

tumors should be left alone. Unless a tumor is pressing on some vital

organ, it may never become a problem as many cancers grow very

slowly, others don't and must be addressed.

The key is to prevent metastasis and this has been effectively done

using standard vitamins in a special combination. Dr. Mathias Rath

has a panented formulation which he claims to be highly effective in

blocking the MMP enzymes that spread the cancers throughout the body.

" Arlyn Grant " wrote:

>

> How should women screen for breast cancer?.....

> I feel that all women need to make the best choices they can for

> themselves. No one should be made to feel poorly if they have

chosen mammography or not. There are, unfortunately, no clear answers.

[Guest guest]

What is listed is proof that there is no reliable screening for breast

cancer and this is actually the same for most cancer screening. And, of

course, most screening adds more toxins to a body that may already be

over-loaded. Radiation is a definite cause of cancer and there is no such

thing as a " safe " dose. Every person should keep that in the back of their

mind. The smashing of the breasts makes fertile ground for DCIS to spread.

The recommended force to be used in order to compress the breast tissue

enough for a proper mammogram is 300 newtons. That's the equivalent of

stacking 50 one-pound bags of sugar on the breast.

My own Mother was a good little soldier and followed all the American Cancer

Society recommendations for women's health - yearly mammogram, a recommended

hysterectomy at age 38 followed by synthetic hormone shots until age 72,

synthroid beginning in her later twenties and a yearly pap smear. She was

diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and DCIS at the age of a very young 77

(wonder if it became invasive because of the yearly smashing of her

breasts!), had surgery to remove some of the tumors and passed away two

years later. By the way, the mammograpms did NOT pick up the DCIS until it

had already spread. She had a thermogram after doing some natural treatment

and it did not seem to show cancer (moral of this story is to have a

baseline thermogram done at an early age if you feel that testing is

profitable). She was not able to keep up with her natural protocol because

of dealing with my Dad who was slowly going down-hill with Alzheimer's - as

you can guess, the emotional stressors for her were great and this is when

she began going down-hill.

Dr. s, Jr. recommends the following:

Don't get a mammogram and don't bother with self-examination. (My comment:

There are a lot of docs that think early detection is not as wonderful as we

are made to believe. Many cancers will take care of themselves if left

alone.)

Be serious about your diet.

Take 500 mg of thiamin (B1) twice daily. It does wonders for lumpy breasts

and may help prevent breast cancer (I have no proof of that), unnecessary

visits to the doctor, and unnecessary surgery.

Take one drop of Lugol's solution (iodine) daily in a glass of water. Iodine

is excellent for breast health. A few people are allergic to iodine-observe

closely for rash after the first dose. An even more effective treatment with

Lugol's solution is to paint the cervix with it. Often the lumps will

disappear before the patient leaves the doctor's office! (According to Dr.

Derry - In 1993 Ghent and Eskin published a landmark paper on the

treatment of severe fibrocystic disease of the breast with iodine

supplements. This paper was the result of more than 30 years of marvelous

research by Dr. Bernard. A. Eskin of the Medical College of Pennsylvania in

Philadelphia. First in animals and then in humans he proved fibrocystic

disease of the breast is the result of low dietary iodine. He has shown also

that this can go on to develop into breast cancer. I feel Dr. Eskin's

research represents a major step toward conquering breast cancer and likely

other cancers.)

Take flaxseed oil twice a day.

Avoid trans fatty acids in margarine and vegetable shortenings, used in most

processed foods.

If you are a potential mother, remember to breast-feed your babies. Women

who breast-feed are much less likely to get breast cancer.

Get plenty of sunshine. Breast cancer is less frequent in areas where there

is ample sunlight un-obscured by smog or fog. As added insurance, eat oily

fish and take cod liver oil as sources of vitamin D.

Drink water free of chlorine and fluorine.

Get plenty of calcium from raw milk and bone broths.

If you develop a large lump in the breast, do not submit to more surgery

than a simple lump removal and do not allow them to cut into the lymph nodes

in your arm pit.

Pass on the radiation and chemotherapy. Radiation is highly destructive of

not only tissues, but the immune system, which then makes you more

susceptible to all diseases. It is usually a terrible price to pay for a

temporary shrinkage of a tumor.

I would add the following:

Eat as close to nature (mean unprocessed foods) as possible - organic and

non-GMO foods. Meat and dairy should be organic and pasture-fed and not

grain-fed. If you drink milk it should be raw - better yet would be to

drink hemp milk, etc.

Decline synthetic hormone replacement. Check out iodine therapy and natural

progesterone for thyroid conditions, cysts and fibrocystic breast disease.

Keep hormones balanced through diet, supplementation, exercise, sunshine or

Vitamin D-3.

Use lymphatic drainage techniques such as rebounding, deep breathing and dry

skin brushing.

Get a good fitting bra. There are some very good ones out there, however

they tend to be pricey.

Control environmental toxins as much as possible.

Work on anger and negative emotions!

While living as cancer-free as possible will not guarantee 100% that cancer

will not develop (actually everyone develops cancer at one time or another

in their life time) or will not return, it will go a long way in supporting

the body to repair and heal in a natural way.

Be Well

Loretta

-----Original Message-----

How should women screen for breast cancer?

1. Mammography - surely will cause all women to die according to the

die-hards. Though digital mammograms use less radiation. Not good for

dense breast tissue.

2. Thermography - no one knows about it and it isn't available in the

majority of cities. To be used in conjuction with other screening

tools.

3. Ultrasound - May not pick up microcalcifications. Thus not picking

up many early cancers. To be used in conjuction with other screening

tools.

4. MRIs - Not covered by most insurances for screening. Too many false

positives so many doctors will not use them. To be used in conjuction

with other screening tools.

5. Self-breast exams - Many women never have lumps until the cancer is

very far advanced.

I feel that all women need to make the best choices they can for

themselves. No one should be made to feel poorly if they have chosen

mammography or not. There are, unfortunately, no clear answers.

Even living a cancer-free lifestyle will not assure anyone of remaining

cancer free.

So, do your best. Make the best choices you can.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

s/

[Guest guest]

Statistically, those who have yearly mammograms end up much more likely to

develop breast cancer. I'm sorry but I can't remember the exact numbers but

they are significant in showing that mammograms are dangerous.

Jp

[Guest guest]

Rath cancer vitamin regimin:

http://www.drrathvitamins.com/news/wsj_rebuttal.html

>

comdyne writes:

Dr. Mathias Rath has a panented formulation which he claims to be highly

effective in blocking the MMP enzymes that spread the cancers throughout the

body

>

> What is this formula and what are the enzymes?

[Guest guest]

Thermography is more acurate, is able to detect cancer much sooner than

a mamogram would be able to, involves no radiation, involves no pain.

It is a no brainer for me.

Mamograms will still be pushed by the medical profession because they

cost more than thermography (from a business stand point) and because

they have invested time training and equipment into mamograms. I

encourage you to investigate and look into thermography and mamograms

and come to your own conclusion.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:04:54 -0000, " thresaaguayo28 "

<aguayot@...> said:

> Thermography is more acurate, is able to detect cancer much sooner than

> a mamogram would be able to, involves no radiation, involves no pain.

> It is a no brainer for me.

>

> Mamograms will still be pushed by the medical profession because they

> cost more than thermography (from a business stand point) and because

> they have invested time training and equipment into mamograms. I

> encourage you to investigate and look into thermography and mamograms

> and come to your own conclusion.

It says on one thermography site that it might not pick up on DCIS - so

a digital mammogram would be more accurate for that condition. Also,

not all hot spots might be the start of cancer. I think the technology

is fabulous and I hope it pans out to be a true option.

I'm excited because I may have found a place in town that will do it for

me. I'm waiting for them to call me back later this afternoon. It

looks as if they don't do it all year long??? But we'll see. I'll get

my last mammo films to compare.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

Thermography does not detect accurately the location of the tumor

so X-rays may be necessary if you elect to have the tumor removed.

Malignant tumors produce more heat than does natural tissue and the

thermograph simply detects the heat differentials between tissue

masses. It can detect cancer years before they can be seen on X-ray.

It is not always necessary to remove tumors. In fact, early cancer

specialists left them alone and used natural methods with good

success.

Digestive enzymes are used by the body to naturally break down tumors

which always form as a part of the healing process. The eating of

excess animal protein diverts these enzymes leaving less to deal with

tissue repair. The relationship to meat eating societies and cancer

runs a close parallel. I am not advocating vegetarianism, I just

making the comment so that people know.

Breast tumors are often just fibroids that have formed due to a lack

of iodine. This is true for uterine fibroids as well. There are

several notable doctors who are discussed at length on other

groups about iodine and the role it plays in diseases.

" thresaaguayo28 " wrote:

>Thermography is more acurate, is able to detect cancer much sooner

than a mamogram would be able to, involves no radiation, involves no

pain. It is a no brainer for me.

> Mamograms will still be pushed by the medical profession because

they cost more than thermography (from a business stand point) and

because they have invested time training and equipment into mamograms. I

encourage you to investigate and look into thermography and mamograms and come

to your own conclusion.

>

[Guest guest]

BTW: The tumor is not the loci of the cancer when dealing with

internal cancers. It is a local manifestation of a systemic disorder

and removing it will not rid your body of cancer. This is a great

misconception people have about this disease. Skin cancers are often

local and if removed properly (seldom done) they don't constitute a

risk for metastasis. Internal cancers are another matter entirely.

Generally only one tumor forms in the body and does not metastasize

for a while. If cancer is discovered in the early stages the chances

for recovery are much greater than after tumors are allowed to

spread. Cutting out the primary tumor often accelerates the

proliferation of multiple tumors throughout the body. If one elects

to have surgery it may be better to simply de-bulk the tumor but

leave some of it behind. This was, the primary tumor can be delt with

and the possibility of other formations is greatly reduced.

Dr. Day mentions this in her tape series. Her info is terrific.

>

> Thermography does not detect accurately the location of the tumor

> so X-rays may be necessary if you elect to have the tumor removed.

> Malignant tumors produce more heat than does natural tissue and the

> thermograph simply detects the heat differentials between tissue

> masses. It can detect cancer years before they can be seen on X-ray.

>

> It is not always necessary to remove tumors. In fact, early cancer

> specialists left them alone and used natural methods with good

> success.

> SNIP

[Guest guest]

How do you know the mammogram didn't cause the cancer? Had you never had

any mammorgrams up to the time you developed the disease? Just curious.

R

[Guest guest]

I'm interested in the advancing technology that can, hopefully,

determine if a tumor has the ability to become metastatic. As some

cancer has the ability to spread, and other cancer does not. I think it

is one more part of the puzzle. It will greatly help people determine

if they should leave well enough alone or not.

There are many cases of people dying from metastatic cancer who didn't

know they had cancer. My mother was one of them. And the wife of a

friend was another one of them. So, the thought of just leaving tumors

alone sounds fairly risky to me. Granted, these women didn't have the

opportunity to try any alternative treatments, so that is a factor. But

I do not feel comfortable leaving malignant tumors inside my body.

ar

On Mon, 05 May 2008 17:51:34 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> BTW: The tumor is not the loci of the cancer when dealing with

> internal cancers. It is a local manifestation of a systemic disorder

> and removing it will not rid your body of cancer. This is a great

> misconception people have about this disease. Skin cancers are often

> local and if removed properly (seldom done) they don't constitute a

> risk for metastasis. Internal cancers are another matter entirely.

>

> Generally only one tumor forms in the body and does not metastasize

> for a while. If cancer is discovered in the early stages the chances

> for recovery are much greater than after tumors are allowed to

> spread. Cutting out the primary tumor often accelerates the

> proliferation of multiple tumors throughout the body. If one elects

> to have surgery it may be better to simply de-bulk the tumor but

> leave some of it behind. This was, the primary tumor can be delt with

> and the possibility of other formations is greatly reduced.

>

> Dr. Day mentions this in her tape series. Her info is terrific.

>

>

> >

> > Thermography does not detect accurately the location of the tumor

> > so X-rays may be necessary if you elect to have the tumor removed.

> > Malignant tumors produce more heat than does natural tissue and the

> > thermograph simply detects the heat differentials between tissue

> > masses. It can detect cancer years before they can be seen on X-ray.

> >

> > It is not always necessary to remove tumors. In fact, early cancer

> > specialists left them alone and used natural methods with good

> > success.

> > SNIP

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

Leaving a tumor alone, untouched, is very hard for some to comprehend,

primarily because we have been conditioned to believe that

removing the tumor removes the cancer with the added risk that some

cells may remain behind thus the justification for chemotherapy. The

evidence, however, clearly does not support that idea and many

oncologists are backing away from post operative chemo due to a more

inquisitive patient base and the ease of which controversial studies

are falling into the hands of the consumer due to the internet.

Patients are beginning to question everything as they should.

Doctor Bell, way back in 1913 made some brilliant observations about

the characteristics he found in common with cancer and its re-

emergence after surgery. The American cancer doctor Eli G. went

so far as to say that the surgical extirpation of a malignant tumor

constituted a criminal assault upon the patient and he railed at whom

he considered unethical physicians who recommended a surgical

solution. It was common knowledge that surgery only caused the tumors

to return and when they did so, usually with a vengeance.

One chapter in his book was especially disturbing in the male

attitude depicted at a medical convention he attended where it became

starkley obvious that far too many doctors had a cavalier attitude towards

women.

>

> I'm interested in the advancing technology that can, hopefully,

> determine if a tumor has the ability to become metastatic. As some

> cancer has the ability to spread, and other cancer does not. I

think it

> is one more part of the puzzle. It will greatly help people

determine

> if they should leave well enough alone or not.

> SNIP

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/5/08 12:10:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

arlynsg@... writes:

> Mamograms will still be pushed by the medical profession because they

> > cost more than thermography (from a business stand point) and because

> > they have invested time training and equipment into mamograms

I think it's the latter because I do believe that mamos are less expensive

than a thermogram, altho I can't swear to this.

**************

Wondering what's

for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.

(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/5/08 5:08:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

comdyne@... writes:

> The American cancer doctor Eli G. went

> so far as to say that the surgical extirpation of a malignant tumor

> constituted a criminal assault upon the patient

Dr Issels urged the removal of the tumor so as to give the immune system less

to deal with.

**************

Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new

twists on family favorites at AOL Food.

(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

[Guest guest]

>

> How do you know the mammogram didn't cause the cancer? Had you never had

> any mammorgrams up to the time you developed the disease? Just curious.

>

Nope ... I found my tumor at the age of 39. I got a mammo then, but since it

was clear

(because it was lobular, which doesn't show up on mammos and ultrasounds, the

sneaky

monster), and I was ignorant about cancer, I took their word for it and left it

alone. As I said,

10 months later, it had grown and was becoming visible. It was then that I got

it removed.

xxo

>

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:57:20 EDT, Rosebookay@... said:

> How do you know the mammogram didn't cause the cancer? Had you never

> had

> any mammorgrams up to the time you developed the disease? Just curious.

>

> R

That's correct. Also, I belong to a young women with breast cancer

group. The majority of them had never had a mammo either.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/5/08 12:10:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

arlynsg123mail (DOT) org writes:

> Mamograms will still be pushed by the medical profession because they

> > cost more than thermography (from a business stand point) and because

> > they have invested time training and equipment into mamograms

I think it's the latter because I do believe that mamos are less expensive

than a thermogram, altho I can't swear to this.

Well, I'm due for another thermo soon, but my recollection is that it is similar

in cost to mammo. Certainly the price difference is not significant. It's not

like you're going from mammo to MRI, for heaven's sake! I've come to the

opinion that it is, in fact, because " the system " likes mammos and a lot of

people would find their work load reduced if the more accurate thermos were

accepted. So far, it's still much harder to find a thermo than a mammo.

Translation: the numbers of thermo practitioners isn't significant enough to be

concerned with their issues. Mammo folks will have a bigger lobby - therefore,

a bigger " squeaky wheel. "

Recent Activity

20New Members

Visit Your Group

Health

Memory Loss

Are you at risk

for Alzheimers?

Meditation and

Lovingkindness

A Group

to share and learn.

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more..