Re: Re: Mammograms increase Breast Cancer Risk

[Guest guest]

What does this mean? " If they are so concerned about the radiation-cancer link,

then why in the world do they drown you in the stuff after diagnosis? "

Who is the 'they' in both of these instances? Some of 'them' would not

irradiate every woman and the others would radiate every woman. The above

statement does not give credibility towards justification for having mammograms.

As said many time before, it is difficult telling a woman that was diagnosed, or

was told she was diagnosed with Breast Cancer, found by a Mammogram, that she

should not have had a mammogram. That is not at the heart of the issue going

on right now.

The issue is, thousands, multiple thousands of women are being exposed to

cancer-causing radiation, admittedly so by all experts, and many thousand of

those women will be 'incorrectly' diagnosed with Breast Cancer thereby getting

more and more 'heroic' and increasingly dangerous procedures/scans, and whom

will never develop cancer.

Many experts agree that the most dangerous and fast growing cancers are too

often 'missed' by mammograms as happened with my daughter-in-law whom, within a

month of her exam, A MONTH, discovered a 'search-light' size tumor she thought

was a cyst because it was so quick and so obvious. It was breast cancer!

This is not an isolated case because these are exactly what brought about this

controversy.

That being said, everything we do is a decision.......right or wrong.........a

decision. What we should not do is try to convince everyone that our decision

is the right decision. In fact, we do not know if our decision was right in

the first place. Another statement, " By the time it is palpable, it is

usually an invasive cancer " is obviously not correct either. Most of us do not

have enough knowledge to make such broad, all-encompassing statements.

We are not speaking of an isolated 'exposure' to radiation and forced

manipulation of a breast that might, in itself, create 'seeding' problems, we

are speaking of 15-20 years of Mammograms that when examined in the light are

not resulting in extended life. Survivability has barely changed during the

past 40 years and most of it simply the manipulation of statistics. In fact,

the early detection is misleading because the 'extra' years they found the

tumor/cancer, are added to the old survivability and it makes people think they

are living longer.

Ex: If there is a percentage of survivors living 5 years after diagnosis, and

they now find those people's cancer's 2 years earlier..................those two

years are added to the five and guess what? They just say survivability is now

7 years. It isn't. Nothing has changed but the numbers. Medicine is and

always has been a manipulation of the numbers. How often have we read the

terms, 'Absolute' and 'Relative' when discussing their statistics. Too often.

When the 'Relative' figure is thrown at patients, they are completely being

misled and there is no denying it.

Let me repeat, it is difficult telling the person that was diagnosed correctly,

if that was the case, via the use of any screening procedure, that they should

not have had it. It isn't difficult for me because I would not say it.

I simply said it is a decision one has to make but a decision others should make

based upon all the facts not just one's emotions.

You hear professionals heralding the benefits of screening for cancer but never

disputing what the opposition is saying. They use the emotional arguments and

the letters from a few people saying, " I would not be alive today if it wasn't

for the Mammogram " .

Have we not heard of people that have never had treatments and have survived

cancer......or people that have survived using Alternative methods exclusively

and it wasn't very long ago the 'establishment' admitted that there are

'spontaneous remissions' for which there is no explanation and because of that,

some professionals think more 'watchful waiting' is in order.

In the case of Prostate Cancers this is already becoming

accepted...............slowly, but more and more.

It is difficult giving up the Cash-Cow of surgery, medication, screenings, and

all that goes with cancer.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

If more mammograms would discover more cancers, then perhaps they should be had

monthly?

There is no evidence but a belief system, in place, that a particular DCIS

would turn into cancer, in fact, there is more evidence it is not the problem

they once thought it was.

We have the right to drink and smoke too. Nobody is taking anyone's right away

or even suggesting a right be taken away. That is nothing more than propaganda

to assault Health-Care Reform. They jumped from the 'Pulling the Plug on

Grandma to Taking away a woman's right to have a Mammogram. Beliefs, whether

in religion or health-care, one of the strongest religions in the world often

speak to issues with little evidence.........look at the fervor being generated

by this subject and by people like us.............people that spout their

beliefs with little evidence beyond a 'feeling' or a 'suspicion' which I guess

is the same thing.

I am sorry to dispute your entire thought that this is 'taking away' a right you

claim you have. Show me where that is? Perhaps, if the people pushing

mammograms, chemotherapy, surgery, perhaps if 'they' wanted an alternative,

there would be one. Do not blame those offering their evidence regarding the

benefits or lack thereof of mammogram screening for not pushing some

alternative. That's the Conventional system and the power of a corrupt system

that kill more people than they save. If we did not believe this to be true,

there would be no Cancer-cured list.

There is no evidence, and I'll repeat that, that any particular treatment any of

us have had, is the reason we are here today. What would you have had my

daughter-in-law do? Get a mammogram every two weeks? Wasn't the once enough

and the doctor's exam enough so that a fast growing cancer could be detected or

do we simply say, " that was just an unusual case " . The facts are in, this

isn't an unusual case..........mammograms tend to miss the more serous cancers

and mammograms also lead to heroic and unnecessary treatments for millions of

women. Millions, not just a few.

Every decision we make is not the right decision. It is simply a decision

.......but it is a right that one can make themselves..........sometimes. I say

sometimes because Conventional Medicine can force you to be treated or have your

children be treated and sometimes you cannot stop them.

Anyone wanting a mammogram has the right to have one and if they have one, that

is their business. By the same token, this is an Alternative Cancer list and

while there is freedom of speech there is also freedom to dispute statements

that are over-reaching such as, once a lump is found, it is probably invasive

or, that DCIS will become full-blown cancer. That is not backed up by

evidence. On the contrary, the thinking about DCIS has come to be very

different from what it was just 10 years ago.

It is no different from Heart-by-pass surgery. How many people that have had it

believe their lives were saved as a result of that surgery? An entire section

of Cardiology believes that most of the surgeries could have been avoided and

people treated medically and that the life-span of people undergoing the surgery

is no better than those not having it.

I'll give you another one. The 'Filter' people have inserted in their groins

when a blood clot is found because of the inactivity/trauma they suffered. A

big study now finds that there is no measurable benefit because of this

procedure. However, tell that to someone that had it inserted.

I wouldn't dare tell a person that believes their life was saved by chemotherapy

or radiation that it wasn't. I could not prove it wasn't so why would I?

However, they cannot prove it was. It's a belief, nothing more.

I am particularly concerned when statements are made regarding " rights being

taken away " or " treatments to the elderly being denied " because I am very

involved with the need for health-care-reform. I am an insurance professional

and it is my opinion that the propaganda machine needs to be countered. People

are being spoon-fed nonsense about rights and treatments being taken away when

it is the Insurance Industry that is denying coverage and is the cause of high

premiums. We need to stop buying into sensational statements like " pulling the

plug " or " taking away my rights " . Too many on this list do not even have

insurance and still they argue the insurance industry talking points.

There are enough lists available for people that want to pursue conventional

practices without this list turning into one of them. People join this list,

sometimes not realizing it is an Alternative oriented list while others are well

aware of it. I do not need to belong to a list to hear about conventional

practices on a regular basis because all I need to do is go to my regular

physician for that. Any women can go to any Gynecologist or Oncologist and get

The Full Works without any help from this list.

The subject line is correct, the evidence is clear and it comes from the very

profession that started it in the first place. To deny the subject line is

foolhardy. To deny there are variables? Just as fool-hardy. Mammograms done

routinely, the way currently done, do more harm than good. This does not mean

the person that 'falls into the 'good' should be sorry she had one, it is simply

looking at the entire picture and people right now, defending screening, are

not, not taking into consideration the many thousands that are going to develop

cancer that would not have but for the excessive radiation received over a

lifetime. Do not forget the dental or other X-rays exposed to over the years.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Cheri, not only did the mammogram miss my daughter-in-law's most aggressive

cancer, the physical exam a week later also missed it. If it had not 'jumped

out' and stood out like a beacon, she would not have known it.

The very same argument being made in defense of mammograms or against its

overuse, because that is what is being discussed, applies to other diagnostic

efforts, such as biopsy. It is established medical fact that biopsy, like

mammograms, can either 'seed' cancer cells or in the case of mammograms, cause

cancer.

People are using " minimal " amount of radiation as if it is of no consequence but

it is also fact, indisputable fact, that mammography, done for many years,

results in more women developing cancer than would have.

The decision one makes to undergo the risk to 'catch it early' is a personal

decision. For us, however, to urge women to subject themselves to this risk,

using faulty and personal experience, is questionable at best.

Nobody is addressing the very strong evidence being presented that many

thousands of women are going to get cancer because of having regular mammograms.

Another thing not being addressed is that the supposed survivals of early

detection include those, whether breast cancer or prostate, that would not have

killed them in the first place.

To accuse the professionals that are looking at the overuse of mammograms of

wanting women to get invasive cancer is quite a stretch. This is not a new

controversy, but only new because it has been picked up by conventional

practiticioners and researchers. Many in the Alternative field have known

about this 'screening game', be it breast, prostate, or other types. It is

only hitting the news because it is being used by proponents of 'status quo'

rather than Health-Care Reform.

There are other methods, not approved of course, that can be used to detect

cancer and don't expect them to ever be approved because the cash-cow of

chemotherapy, radiation, Mammograms, Biopsy and extensive surgery is more

important to medicine than truth. Obviously not all conventional practitioners

think that way but those in power, they do. Big Pharma the driving force.

How many women undergo chemotherapy? Lots. Yet a review of the very

extensive study by the Australian Oncologists, studying theirs as well as the

U.S. records, proved to them that only 2% of the women undergoing this form of

treatment benefited. If a doctor told me that I would have to undergo this

often dangerous and life-threatening treatment but only 2 out of 100 benefit and

many actually die from it, do you think I would be willing to accept it? No.

However, some would and there is the decision process.

When I refused a biopsy of my entire bladder because of the 'seeding issue, the

Urologist thought I was foolish and that he would take precautions against it.

When I asked what would be the course taken if what he was looking for showed

up, he said, " then everything come out " . Everything meant, The bladder, the

urethra, ureters, and prostate.................none of which guaranteed no

spread of cancer. I elected not to.............my decision and not the one

others would make, However, if I had not been involved with Alternative

thoughts most of my life, I might have done everything 'they' wanted to do.

There are those in the conventional field that believe that early mastectomy for

any woman whose family has a history of breast cancer is appropriate. I

supposed they could do this at birth and that would be as early as one could

protect against breast cancer. Perhaps all men should have their prostates

removed when reaching their 30s,

Screening is being examined by many researchers because the numbers relating to

survival do not add up to prove screening works. It is no accident that

screening is under fire.............researchers are looking at the numbers. As

for survival? Without trying to be negative, but this is negative, the game

isn't over for any of us.

Being in 'remission' or 'cured' as some would prefer to say, for a number of

years, does not mean we are going to stay that way. I don't call that

'negative's but to me, realistic.

If some want to ignore the fact that some cancers will not kill them or that

many are dying because of the very treatments they get, that is their decision

and that is what life is all about. Just be assured I am not 'attacking' anyone

for their decision because as 'J' (I think) suggested, it is one scary thing to

be hit with.............the diagnosis of cancer. I shed many a tear that my

grandson of only 2 would not remember me............but then common sense and my

many years of 'flirting' with alternative health caused me to use the Internet.

(he's now 9) I found this list. A wonderful former member whose son also had

bladder cancer suggested I seek out , Director of The Center for The

study of Natural Oncology and he made some suggestions and my spirits lifted.

Eventually I met him on his office day off and he graciously devoted more than

an hour of his time, gratis, and the following year as well. Even had the

luxury of seeing his lab.

When I discussed treatments with the Urologist I had 'support'

now............but under no circumstances was I going to undergo chemotherapy

but did accept immunotherapy. Thanks to this list I was able to have the

support needed. Thank goodness I was not 'pushed' into getting things, such

as the entire bladder biopsy or chemotherapy by some well-meaning, sincere, but

uninformed member of this list.

One final thought on how these 'professional think'. When I was having

difficulty getting catheterized the Uro said, " well, perhaps it is time to

consider Chemotherapy " . I said what would you use? He said, " Mitomycin "

I happened to have researched that earlier and I said, " I researched that and it

isn't all that effective " .................he responded....... " you're right " .

That was the end of that. This doesn't make me a genius but it tells me we

can be 'up-to-speed' on anything doctors are by reading and searching what they

read and search. We do not know the physiology or anatomy they

know...........but we can be up on everything else because they often do not

have the time or take the time to stay up on things. Haven't we read that

some doctors have never heard of Thermography? When I told my Uro that the

Lidocaine they use to 'deaden' the invasive Cystoscope pain was Carcinogenic, he

got annoyed and said, " everything is carcinogenic " . A year later they no

longer used it. I knew it before his office knew it.............not because I

am smarter than them............I read it in a study and they didn't.

Talk about a long-winded digression. That's the story of my life. Sorry, but

this thread has produced other long passages but this one is my last on the

subject because we are beating it to death........bad word.

ONCE MORE: I am with each and everyone one of you and will defend your right

to do whatever you want.

I will also, however, point out what I have read and learned from both

Alternative and Conventional sources but most importantly, will always throw in

a 'monkey wrench' when 'absolutes' that are not proven are being thrown at new

members. These are the most vulnerable and few of us are in a position to know

what we had done or are doing for ourselves is why we are alive. The game

isn't over..........it's not necessarily Half-Time yet or the 7th. inning.

Keep an open mind but not so open our brains fall out. Now, off to 'down' a

couple of supplements that have been 'proven' to have a positive effect on

bladder cancer.

One of the people most influential, I believe, on whatever success I have had is

and he himself is battling for his own life right now. , to the

horror of some, would not hesitate to use some conventional protocol to 'stop'

something that is progressing so quickly that something needs to be done in

order to give the body time to heal itself. We do need balance and if, someday,

the studies do prove that early detection is so superior to waiting, then I'll

jump on that wagon and ride it. Until then, and because of experience, I'll

withhold judgment garnered over 60 years (boy am I old).

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your post, Joe. This has needed to be said for a long time. When

I first joined, more than several years back, it was very pro alternative

medicine, but it seems within the last year or two it has become more

mainstream in nature. Not sure why this is and it's difficult to get answers

since the moderators/list owner choose to remain anonymous.

When people have believed a lie that has been presented to them over and

over and over, it is very, very difficult to get them to believe the " truth "

because that " lie " becomes a safe haven. Conventional medicine and its " fix

everything with drugs, surgery, radiation " philosophy has become a huge

safety net (full of unsuspecting holes) that gives people the idea that they

can live and treat their body however they want to so that IF they become

sick or develop a disease conventional medicine will be right there for them

to get them well. I wish members of this list could see some of the people

who " roll " into the offices of natural medicine clinics. I say " roll "

because they are usually in wheel chairs. Why? Because they trusted

conventional medicine with their cancer treatment. They allowed (yes, it

was their decision) surgery after surgery, radiation upon radiation and

drugs beyond the wildest imagination and never ONCE did they do any research

on their own. They totally and completely BELIEVED a LIE. They now want

alternative/natural medicine to fix the results of scientific

medicine...medicine that is supposedly backed by clinical trials and peer

reviewed journals.....medicine that has lied over and over....medicine that

relys soley on sickness and drugs to make their money....medicine that never

tries to get to the root of the concern. These people, who have been used as

lab rats, want a miracle from natural medicine and yet when that doesn't

happen, many blame natural medicine.... " see, it doesn't work! " Again,

misplaced beliefs.

Mammograms do NOT catch breast cancer early. By the time cancer is even

detectable, it has already been there for more than several years....some

believe up to 7-10 years. And the reason we BELIEVE mammograms catch cancer

early is because this is what we have been told and also because we believe

that all cancer kills -- something else we have been " taught " to believe.

We have not been told that everyone has cancer cells in their body, that

everyone develops cancer in their lifetime but many, if not most, of these

cancers resolve themselves without intervention.....but most importantly

that conventional medicine treatment, when used TOO EARLY, can cause a

cancer that would most likely dissolve to actually GROW. Again, we have

been told a lie and now it is difficult to believe the truth.

Our system is broken. We have doctors that are lying in research papers for

pharmaceutical companies; pharmaceutical companies that are using billions

of dollars in advertising their drugs on nightly TV; cancer centers such as

MD that are advertising on the weekends with 30 minutes to 1 hour

worth of TV time (wonder how much of the research dollar goes into this?);

runs and walks, etc. that raise millions of dollars every year, med schools

that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise in and buy books for med

students....yet, we are no closer to a cure than we were in the 70's.

Supposedly just more " scientific " medicine that costs more. Still....people

flock to places like MD for a cure....it is their safety net

because MD has set themselves up as the premier cancer treatment

center. The reason that I say this is because I used to think in the same

manner....until I had a month of chemotherapy....did anyone offer me the

information that chemo is almost never curative for colon cancer? NO! My

very short dealings with the cancer industry in Houston was very

eye-opening. It is an INDUSTRY that wants every medical dollar it can get

-- whether through insurance or personally. We have oncology centers (more

than several) in very bedroom community and all around Houston. For a while

it seemed they were popping up everywhere making it convenient for everyone

to get their chemo....how very nice of them!

Arlyn asked about thermograms and why there is not more information or more

availability. When you buck the conventional medical system or go against a

cash-cow (mammograms are a HUGE cash cow), especially the CANCER INDUSTRY,

you will pay a huge price. They will do everything in their power to

disprove and I mean everything. This was played out recently on TV when

Suzanne Somers and several alternative doctors were on Larry King. The

conventional cancer doctors were smug and absolutely ridiculous in their

answers; yet, their purpose was NOT to give out good information (because

they have NONE) but to make the alternative MDs and Suzanne Somers look

foolish. However, in this case, I think it backfired tremendously. As a

side note....everyone really should have a copy of Suzanne Somers book,

Knockout, and should be giving it to loved ones for Christmas. Information

Empowers!

Until we decide to stop believing the lies...until we start holding doctors

and the FDA accountable for their treatments and drug recommendations, there

will be no change, just more of the same. You see, they are coming out with

these changed mammogram recommendations because, again, it is a money thing.

Just as they did with synthetic HRT several years ago when they were

literally " caught " in their lies. Alternative medicine has been screaming

about all of these things for a long, long, long time; however, it is

thought of as quackery with no " scientific " proof or backing. Big medicine

is once again trying to correct something that it has known about for a long

time.....they have been found out and they understand that people are

beginning to believe the truth thus, in order to save face and money, they

are trying to look like the " hero " in saying mammograms are really not

needed until later in life. They have known this for a long, long time -- I

am sending in an article from 2002 that will prove this.

I could tell you story upon story....true stories that would curl your

toenails. List, things are not as they seem in the cancer industry. It is

a dog-eat-dog world and conventional medicine is not about finding a real

cure, it is about finding synthetic drugs that will " manage " your cancer so

you will keep coming back. If there is no money in a treatment, they will

make it look suspect. Did any catch Ralph Moss' blog about Coley's Toxins

this week?

http://themossreports.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/tumor-killing-bacteria/?utm_s

ource=twitterfeed & utm_medium=facebook

Radiation causes cancer. Chemotherapy causes cancer. Lab testing is not

always reliable and in fact if one doesn't have a baseline then lab testing

becomes every more unreliable. Yet this is all conventional medicine has

for cancer patients. FEAR freezes people and is controlling (all

governments know this and practice it) which is what the industry wants and,

most often, decisions that are made quickly and out of FEAR end up causing

regret. .

Read " Politics In Healing " by Haley....things have not changed and

they will not change until people start hitting the cancer industry in the

money-pocket thus making them become responsible for using people as lab

rats. That means holding them just as accountabile as you would if they

botched-up a treatment that caused harm.

Like, Joe, I defend the right of individual choice but I will yell at the

top of my lungs asking people to PLEASE do their RESEARCH and EDUCATION

BEFORE they consent to ANY form of treatment. I draw the line when personal

experience, mine or anyone elses, is construed as a " this is the way it

always happens " type of thing. Treatment should always be very

individualized because every lifestyle is different. We are not

cookie-cutters just because we may have the same type of cancer.

Conventional medicine fails to recognize this.

In closing.....My Mother did everything " right " . She was put on synthetic

thyroid medication in her 20's because she felt " tired " ; synthetic hormone

SHOTS after a hysterectomy when she was 38; mammograms every year after 50.

She ate a very healthy diet, exercised, was never overweight, never smoked

or drank. A very lovely lady. The mammogram that she had every year NEVER

picked up her breast cancer....she died two years after a lump came up under

her arm. In her lifetime, she did all the " preventatives " and testing that

conventional medicine suggested. She declined chemotherapy and lived an

extra two years doing natural therapy and did not want to deal with the

devastation of chemotherapy since she had watched me go through one

hellacious month of it. That was her choice and I don't think she regretted

it other than she often wondered WHY those wonderful mammograms never picked

up the cancer.

For those who don't know, I am a stage 3 colon cancer survivor of nine

years. I did have surgery to remove the tumor and 1 month of chemo -- they

wanted me to do six months of " preventative " chemo. After the one month of

chemo I ended up in the hospital with severe dehydration -- to the point

where my life was in danger. Stopped conventional medicine and began an

alternative medicine protocol. Well within seven months and have stayed

well. My testimony is at http://www.ahha.org/articles.asp?Id=96 I have

walked the path....I don't offer my testimony as a " this is the way it

should be done " but I do offer it as a testimony that natural and

alternative therapies can work.

Be Well

Dr.L

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

If more mammograms would discover more cancers, then perhaps they should be

had monthly?

There is no evidence but a belief system, in place, that a particular DCIS

would turn into cancer, in fact, there is more evidence it is not the

problem they once thought it was.

We have the right to drink and smoke too. Nobody is taking anyone's right

away or even suggesting a right be taken away. That is nothing more than

propaganda to assault Health-Care Reform. They jumped from the 'Pulling the

Plug on Grandma to Taking away a woman's right to have a Mammogram.

Beliefs, whether in religion or health-care, one of the strongest religions

in the world often speak to issues with little evidence.........look at the

fervor being generated by this subject and by people like

us.............people that spout their beliefs with little evidence beyond a

'feeling' or a 'suspicion' which I guess is the same thing.

I am sorry to dispute your entire thought that this is 'taking away' a right

you claim you have. Show me where that is? Perhaps, if the people pushing

mammograms, chemotherapy, surgery, perhaps if 'they' wanted an alternative,

there would be one. Do not blame those offering their evidence regarding

the benefits or lack thereof of mammogram screening for not pushing some

alternative. That's the Conventional system and the power of a corrupt

system that kill more people than they save. If we did not believe this

to be true, there would be no Cancer-cured list.

There is no evidence, and I'll repeat that, that any particular treatment

any of us have had, is the reason we are here today. What would you have

had my daughter-in-law do? Get a mammogram every two weeks? Wasn't the

once enough and the doctor's exam enough so that a fast growing cancer could

be detected or do we simply say, " that was just an unusual case " . The

facts are in, this isn't an unusual case..........mammograms tend to miss

the more serous cancers and mammograms also lead to heroic and unnecessary

treatments for millions of women. Millions, not just a few.

Every decision we make is not the right decision. It is simply a decision

.......but it is a right that one can make themselves..........sometimes. I

say sometimes because Conventional Medicine can force you to be treated or

have your children be treated and sometimes you cannot stop them.

Anyone wanting a mammogram has the right to have one and if they have one,

that is their business. By the same token, this is an Alternative Cancer

list and while there is freedom of speech there is also freedom to dispute

statements that are over-reaching such as, once a lump is found, it is

probably invasive or, that DCIS will become full-blown cancer. That is not

backed up by evidence. On the contrary, the thinking about DCIS has come

to be very different from what it was just 10 years ago.

It is no different from Heart-by-pass surgery. How many people that have

had it believe their lives were saved as a result of that surgery? An

entire section of Cardiology believes that most of the surgeries could have

been avoided and people treated medically and that the life-span of people

undergoing the surgery is no better than those not having it.

I'll give you another one. The 'Filter' people have inserted in their

groins when a blood clot is found because of the inactivity/trauma they

suffered. A big study now finds that there is no measurable benefit

because of this procedure. However, tell that to someone that had it

inserted.

I wouldn't dare tell a person that believes their life was saved by

chemotherapy or radiation that it wasn't. I could not prove it wasn't so

why would I? However, they cannot prove it was. It's a belief, nothing

more.

I am particularly concerned when statements are made regarding " rights being

taken away " or " treatments to the elderly being denied " because I am very

involved with the need for health-care-reform. I am an insurance

professional and it is my opinion that the propaganda machine needs to be

countered. People are being spoon-fed nonsense about rights and treatments

being taken away when it is the Insurance Industry that is denying coverage

and is the cause of high premiums. We need to stop buying into sensational

statements like " pulling the plug " or " taking away my rights " . Too many

on this list do not even have insurance and still they argue the insurance

industry talking points.

There are enough lists available for people that want to pursue conventional

practices without this list turning into one of them. People join this

list, sometimes not realizing it is an Alternative oriented list while

others are well aware of it. I do not need to belong to a list to hear

about conventional practices on a regular basis because all I need to do is

go to my regular physician for that. Any women can go to any Gynecologist

or Oncologist and get The Full Works without any help from this list.

The subject line is correct, the evidence is clear and it comes from the

very profession that started it in the first place. To deny the subject

line is foolhardy. To deny there are variables? Just as fool-hardy.

Mammograms done routinely, the way currently done, do more harm than good.

This does not mean the person that 'falls into the 'good' should be sorry

she had one, it is simply looking at the entire picture and people right

now, defending screening, are not, not taking into consideration the many

thousands that are going to develop cancer that would not have but for the

excessive radiation received over a lifetime. Do not forget the dental or

other X-rays exposed to over the years.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Joe C. I have advance prostrate cancer. It was in my ribs, and my lower

back, the cancer is gone now, but the pain still remains, from where it

once was. it getting better though, For about two years I have had no

treatment but high dose of vitamin and minerals, and also, a no simple

sugars, no bread, and a no fruit or fruit juice diet, I've been on this

for about a year now, my psa been dropping a few points every test

I've had from when this first started. I believe that the damage from

smoking and drinking is only part of the process of cancer. One part is

the damage cause by pathogens, the other part is feeding cancer with an

excess of simple sugars. I know of smokers, and drinkers, who live

well in to there eighties, and nineties. All there lives there diet

lacks the simple sugars cancer needed to make cancer tumours. Smokers

and drinkers who do this no simple sugar diet, do die, but they die of

other things, then cancer. The reason I also stay away from bread, and

fruit, is bread, is turned into simple sugars, in the GI track. Just one

Apple has a tea spoon of fruit sugar in it. the way this works is our

immune system is quit good at destroying cancer but it cant keep up if

were feeding it with excess simple sugars