Re: Risks vs. Value of Mammograms

[Guest guest]

Dear Reader,

A radiologist is a doctor, but he's also a businessman. So if the American

Cancer Society says mammogram screening saves lives and all women over 40

should be getting a yearly exam, then it's just good business to embrace that

recommendation and strongly encourage customers and patients to step up to

the compression plates.

After all, radiologists who give mammograms are saving lives, right?

So you can imagine how a radiologist might not exactly warm up to a recent

study that shows the life-saving reputation of mammograms is vastly

overstated. In fact, as a radiologist, you might hope that this study would be

strongly refuted by the ACS.

And it was.

But here's the kicker: The study was conducted by a radiologist.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Division in the ranks

-----------------------------------------------------------

The people who promote mammogram screening are pushing the wrong

statistics, according to Keen, M.D. a Chicago radiologist who conducts

mammograms.

Dr. Keen and his brother, Dr. Keen of the University of Nebraska,

simply set out to analyze the claim that mammography saves lives. To calculate

benefit, the Keens compared several sets of metrics, including survival

percentages (with and without screening), relative risk reduction based on

randomized mammography trials, and a 15- year cumulative breast cancer mortality

program.

Results showed that the average woman has a six percent risk of developing

breast cancer between the ages of 55 and 70. But if you take 1,000 women at

age 50 and give each one a yearly mammogram for 15 years, only about two

lives will be saved.

Of course, this conclusion was disputed by , Ph.D. – the ACS

director of cancer screening. Dr. told Reuters that when 465 women are

screened for seven years, one life would be saved over the course of 20

years.

I wonder if he actually believes that sounds impressive?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Taking a toll

-----------------------------------------------------------

One of Dr. Keen's primary problems with recommending such widespread

screening is the high risk of false positive results, which prompt unnecessary

follow up mammograms, ultrasound tests, and biopsies. Obviously this is quite

stressful for patients, while taking a financial toll on patients and

insurance companies.

What Dr. Keen doesn't mention are the two factors that I'm sure most

radiologists would rather not discuss:

1) Radiation

Yearly mammograms expose women to cumulative doses of radiation that may

prompt cancer growth

2) Compression

Rough handling of breasts can cause tumors to spread, and the intense

compression required for mammography clearly qualifies as rough handling.

In an interview with Reuters, Dr. Keen very accurately characterizes the

medical community's relationship with mammogram candidates: " We don't trust

women to make their own decisions about whether to screen. We just tell them

to screen. We just say mammography saves lives. "

In Dr. Keen's view, the patient is making a purchase and he just wants to

let them know what they're buying. " I am saying that women need to be told

the benefits and the harms and they need to make their own decision. "

Decide on their own? Doesn't he know you're not supposed to say things like

that in the medical mainstream?

You can find more facts about mammogram risks, as well as information about

safe alternatives to conventional mammography, in the e-Alert " End of the

Day " (2/22/07).

Sources:

" What is the point? Will screening mammography save my life? " BMC Medical

Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 9, No. 18, 4/2/09, biomedcentral.com

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/9/18

" Study Argues Benefits of Mammograms Overstated " Maggie Fox, Reuters, 4/2/09,

in.reuters.com

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE53101V20090402

[Guest guest]

And all this or such information goes un-noticed while people feel great about

supporting " breast cancer " " awareness "

Dear Reader,

A radiologist is a doctor, but he's also a businessman. So if the American

Cancer Society says mammogram screening saves lives and all women over 40 should

be getting a yearly exam, then it's just good business to embrace that

recommendation and strongly encourage customers and patients to step up to the

compression plates.

[Guest guest]

So, what this study is saying is that if you have cancer, you're going

to die from cancer so there is no need to screen for it.

Also, this study does not look at all of us who developed breast cancer

earlier than age 55. And there are a lot of us. Personally, I'm very

happy knowing a digital mammogram (which uses less radiation) found my

breast cancer at a very early stage.

There is no way to safely screen for breast cancer that will catch all

breast cancer early. Mammography, ultrasounds, MRIs, and thermography

all have their faults.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

Nobody suggests that one wouldn't or shouldn't be happy they discovered cancer

early from a particular test.

What is being discussed by the 'experts' and we alternative supporters is a

glaring fact that while some cancers will be found early through the use of

mammograms, the negative effect on the millions of people getting them seemingly

exposes too many to unnecessary treatments.

'They' are coming to the conclusion that many breast cancers require no

treatment albeit finding one that doesn't want to treat is probably going to be

difficult to find.\

The same thing is now going on with the PSA test for prostate cancer. Yes

they often discover cancer early and they are also coming to the conclusion that

for millions of men, the cancer would never kill them so why the heroic

treatments? It isn't just the treatments, but what these treatments often do

for Breast and Prostate Cancer victims---ending their lives earlier or often

creating suffering beyond description.

Then there are the people that will develop cancer as the direct result of

getting mammograms or other scans?

It all amounts to one's choices and people make choices all the time. Some opt

for immediate allopathic intervention and others alternative. Some a

combination of both.

Most of us have learned that the least invasive and dangerous seems to be a

better choice but again, one cannot take individual experiences as the answer to

everything.

It is like my Urologist said, " I don't know if what you are doing or what I am

doing is working " and I responded, " I really don't care but I'm not interested

in tumor response, but rather survivability " .

The following quote may be one of the truest ever:

" THE TEST TO WHICH ALL METHODS OF TREATMENT ARE FINALLY BROUGHT IS WHETHER THEY

ARE LUCRATIVE TO DOCTORS OR NOT " -

Bernard Shaw

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

> Nobody suggests that one wouldn't or shouldn't be happy they discovered cancer

early from a particular test.

>

Yes, but mammograms had no value because we have something like Infrared

Thermography which can do the job without dangerous side effects like cancer.

Since doctors started to irradiate people with tuberculosis they are desperate

to continue to use their obsolete toys.

mammograms actually raise the numbers of cancers..

[Guest guest]

>

> > Nobody suggests that one wouldn't or shouldn't be happy they discovered

cancer early from a particular test.

> >

>

> Yes, but mammograms had no value because we have something like Infrared

Thermography which can do the job without dangerous side effects like cancer.

Since doctors started to irradiate people with tuberculosis they are desperate

to continue to use their obsolete toys.

> mammograms actually raise the numbers of cancers..

>

I am playing devil's advocate -

Thermography is expensive and difficult to find in many locations. Also, there

is a chance that it won't show every breast cancer as well. It would not have

shown my cancer. I go once a year for a thermogram and I absolutely love it.

But I can't rely on it 100% knowing it would have missed the cancer I did have.

So, I have to use another method of detection as well.

I'm not saying that mammography is good or bad. I think the point I always try

to make in this group is that women really have no good choices as far as breast

cancer detection goes. I am unfamilar with other cancers, so I can't speak for

them.

And I think Joe C. is one of the smartest people I have " met " online.

ar

[Guest guest]

" Claims for the benefit of screening mammography in reducing breast cancer

mortality are based on eight international controlled trials ....meta-analysis

of these trials revealed that only two, based on 66,000 postmenopausal women,

were adequately randomized...Based on these two trials, the authors concluded

that `there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast cancer

mortality' " www.iicph.org/docs/dangers_of_mammography.htm (Samual Epstein, M.D.

et al.; excellent)

" A Canadian study...seems set to confirm the findings of earlier research (P

Stomper and R Gelman, Hematol Oncol Clin N Am 1989; 3: 611-40) which clearly

suggests that you are more likely to die from cancer if you undergo screening

than if you don't....[for] women under 50....Glamour (October 1991) cites one

ish and two Swedish studies which found that 40 to 50 year old women who

were regularly screened had either a higher incidence of breast cancer deaths

than women given physical exams alone, or no significant reduction in

mortality....In a letter to The Lancet (11 July 1992), Drs D Watmough and K Quan

speculate that excessive levels of force ( " as much compression as the women

could tolerate " ) used in mammograms during an earlier study in Malmo, Sweden,

might explain the findings by I Andersson et al (BMJ 1988; 297: 943-48) that 29

per cent more deaths occurred in the screened group than among the controls for

women under 55 in the first seven years of follow up. "

www.wddty.com/03363800370556196638/the-mammogram-myth.html (thorough article

about the dangers of Mammograms)

www.westonaprice.org/women/mammography.html

" Mammography and biopsies of breasts are similar. Mammography usually should not

be done without doing tumor markers, ultrasound elastography, and thermography

first. " Gammill, 12/30/05

" I have met many women…who have had needle biopsies to the breast…then found

themselves plagued with tumors at the puncture sites. Quite obviously trauma and

the inflammation/healing process promote cancer growth…This is part of the

reason I am reluctant to encourage mammograms. If a breast tumor is traumatized

by placing the breast in a vice, then I am very concerned that this may promote

growth in a slow-growing mass such as most DCIS. Many breast cancers are

spiculated. These tumors radiate little tentacles that can retract nipples or

cause skin dimpling. They are fragile and can be easily broken during

mammography " Gammill, 10/06

" The mammogram test...has...been severely criticized for squeezing and bruising

breast tissue…Physical trauma is considered to be one possible cause of cancer,

and if there is cancer present it may also act to make the tumour more

aggressive. Cancer incidence has been shown in some surveys to be higher among

women who have annual check ups than among those who have never had a mammogram.

The only group of women for whom regular mammograms have been shown to have any

value is in the over 65, and then the degree of benefit is considered to be

marginal...Cornelia J. Baines, MD, deputy director of the Canadian National

Breast Screening Study, writes: `an unacknowledged harm [of mammography] is that

for up to 11 years after the initiation of breast cancer screening in women aged

40-49 years, screened women face a higher death rate from breast cancer than

unscreened control women.…[For] women aged 40-49 years…three years after

screening starts, their chance of death from breast cancer is more than double

that for unscreened control women….For a fuller account of...'the mammography

scandal' go to www.rense.com/general64/mam.htm " Chamberlain (2008),

_Cancer: The Complete Recovery Guide: Everything That Everyone Should Know About

Cancer and How to Recover From It_. Long Island Press. www.fightingcancer.com

" mammogram...can generate enough free radicals to trigger more aggressive

changes if it is cancer, as in non-invasive DCIS to invasive, or overexpression

of growth receptors....may be on [Mercola.com] or on Gupta's site….women

who had annual mammograms were significantly more likely to develop invasive

breast cancer compared to women of the same age who did not have regular

mammograms, and women with non-invasive DCIS being followed regularly with

mammograms were more likely to develop invasive cancer than women followed with

ultrasound and clinical exam without mammos " Aliss Terpstra 6/24/04

" I would also do a loading dose of iodine if I were to ever have another

mammogram….Holy Basil's ability to protect against radiation damage " Aliss

For more info on mammography (and thermography):

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/11/26/why-mammography-is\

-not-an-effective-breast-cancer-screen.aspx

For more info on x-rays as a primary cause of cancer,

www.articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/04/07/x-ray-part-one.aspx

" mammograms are more accurate when done within the first two weeks after the

start of a woman's period....women having their mammogram during the last two

weeks of their menstrual cycle, were twice as likely to have

false-negative....ABCNEWS Medical Correspondent Dr. Snyderman [states

that]....The ideal time [for] self-breast examination is five days after

menstruation " www.annieappleseedproject.stores..net/timmam.html

If one gets an annual breast exam, ultrasound, thermography, and/or uses other

alt. diagnostic procedures done, then added benefit of a mammogram would be

negligible, but the harm from it would still be just as large.

[Guest guest]

Ah, please name the faults of theromgraphy. thanks.

>

> So, what this study is saying is that if you have cancer, you're going

> to die from cancer so there is no need to screen for it.

>

> Also, this study does not look at all of us who developed breast cancer

> earlier than age 55. And there are a lot of us. Personally, I'm very

> happy knowing a digital mammogram (which uses less radiation) found my

> breast cancer at a very early stage.

>

> There is no way to safely screen for breast cancer that will catch all

> breast cancer early. Mammography, ultrasounds, MRIs, and thermography

> all have their faults.

>

> ar

> --

> Arlyn Grant

> arlynsg@...

>

[Guest guest]

Here is some great information about this, it is a free online book by Mike

, called the Breast Cancer Deception.

http://www.naturalnews.com/report_breast_cancer_deception_0.html

Also has anyone ordered his CD set called The Illusion of Disease? You can

order it from his website...amazing!!!! Worth every penny!

http://www.truthpublishing.com/product_p/cd-cat21492.htm

[Guest guest]

>

> Ah, please name the faults of theromgraphy. thanks.

Hi ,

Cost - insurance doesn't cover thermography. It will cost between $120--$175 I

believe. And you are supposed to have two thermograms within a few months at

the beginning in order to set your baseline. Full body scans cost a whole lot

more, of course.

Availability - not widely available.

Does it really pick up all breast cancers - no. From Mayo clinic:

" This technology is most effective in detecting tumors that are close to the

skin surface but not tumors deeper in the breast. Also, breast thermography is

not sensitive enough to detect small cancers. " My cancer had not formed a tumor

yet, so thermography may not have picked it up. But a digital mammogram did.

Location of tumor - thermography can't actually show where the tumor is located.

So, if it does pick something up, a mammogram or ultrasound will be necessary in

order to do a biopsy. Not all tumors show up on an ultrasound or a mammogram,

unfortunately. An ultrasound would be so much better.

ar

[Guest guest]

I understand about the price but thermography is pretty accurate :

" Infrared Mammography provides a high (94-99%) diagnostic sensitivity " .

Hoekstra, PP. The Autonomic Challenge and Breast Thermology. Thermology

International, 2005;15:3.

About mammograms, what if a diagnostic test actually triggers the

life-threatening disease it is supposed to detect? According to a s Hopkins

study just published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, that may

be exactly what happens when women at risk for genetic breast cancer are

subjected to radiation exposure from annual mammograms.

If I believe Walter Last who worked as a biochemist research chemist in the

medical departments of several Germany cities and at Bio-Science Laboratories in

Los Angeles, USA.

“Studies appear to show that early intervention is helpful, because

pre-cancerous lesions are included in early removals that frequently would not

become cancerous if left untouched [author's emphasis].â€

In other words, early intervention appears to be helpful because lesions are

removed that are not cancerous but are counted as being cancer, and that

improves the survival statistics. “Also, it does not matter how much or how

little of a breast is removed; the outcome is always the same.â€1 This

statement indicates that surgery does not improve survival chances, otherwise

there would be a difference between radical surgery and lumpectomy.

Researchers have said it is complacent to continue subjecting at least 70% of

women with breast cancer to a futile mutilating procedure.2 Furthermore, there

is no evidence that early mastectomy affects survival; if patients knew this,

they would most likely refuse surgery.3

1. Skrabanek, P., “False Premises and False Promises of Breast Cancer

Screeningâ€, The Lancet 2:316-19 (1985)

2 Baum, M., “The Curability of Breast Cancerâ€, British MedicalJoumal 1:43942

(1976)

3. Cunningham, L, “Mastectomy for so-called lobular carcinoma in situâ€, The

Lancet 1(8163):306 (February

[Guest guest]

I am not an expert :-)

Advantages & Disadvantages of Thermography:

1. The electronic image allows comparison of temperatures over a larger area

2. Even moving targets can be captures in real time

3. Health of weakening/infected components can be found before failure

4. Can measure areas that can’t be accessed easily by other conventional

and risky methods

5. The equipment is expensive and require a great deal of care

6. Pictures tend to be difficult to interpret even for the most experienced

physician

7. Training and staying up-to-date in thermography is time intensive

8. Most of the thermography cameras have a ±2% or more accuracy problem

9. Diagnostic thermal imaging or diagnostic thermography is not easily

available

10. It is not readily accepted by the physicians and the public due to lack of

understanding.

11 it is expensive

> Ah, please name the faults of theromgraphy. thanks.

>

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Well Ar, I strongly disagree with you on this issue. Mammography is not the best

at detecting tumors but thermography can detect up to 10 years prior to the

tumor formation. I have used it extensively in my practice for the whole body

and the breast. I use it to track when the veins that have formed to feed tumors

dry up during my treatment with others. It has been extremely successful. With

thermography, we are interested in temperature changes that occur symmetrically.

It is easy to do, understand and track for appropriate follow-up.

It is not very expensive and everyone needs baselines instead of shooting in the

dark with this or that. We need tools to track our progress. If it is not

mammography, PET or cat scans, then we need other ones otherwise you are left

wondering and can lose precious time treating the condition.

Johanne Wayne CN

> >

> > > Nobody suggests that one wouldn't or shouldn't be happy they discovered

cancer early from a particular test.

> > >

> >

> > Yes, but mammograms had no value because we have something like Infrared

Thermography which can do the job without dangerous side effects like cancer.

Since doctors started to irradiate people with tuberculosis they are desperate

to continue to use their obsolete toys.

> > mammograms actually raise the numbers of cancers..

> >

>

> I am playing devil's advocate -

>

> Thermography is expensive and difficult to find in many locations. Also,

there is a chance that it won't show every breast cancer as well. It would not

have shown my cancer. I go once a year for a thermogram and I absolutely love

it. But I can't rely on it 100% knowing it would have missed the cancer I did

have. So, I have to use another method of detection as well.

>

> I'm not saying that mammography is good or bad. I think the point I always

try to make in this group is that women really have no good choices as far as

breast cancer detection goes. I am unfamilar with other cancers, so I can't

speak for them.

>

> And I think Joe C. is one of the smartest people I have " met " online.

>

> ar

>

[Guest guest]

Hello beautiful Johanne,

I need to clear up a few things.

I am not saying that thermography is bad and mammography is good. No, no, no.

I believe in going into things with open eyes. My open eyes tell me that

thermography is not the end all be all. I love it and I have my thermogram once

a year. But we should not blindly believe that all things alternative are

perfect, they are not.

I hate mammography. But it found my cancer. And that simply is the truth. I'm

trying to get up the nerve to not have another mammogram, but an ultrasound also

would have missed my cancer.

I do not believe that thermography can pick up tumors up to 10 years earlier

than mammography only because the evidence isn't really there. I did my

research on thermography, and I see where that number came from. I also believe

that thermography cannot pick up certain types of breast cancer - just as

mammography and ultrasounds cannot pick up all cancers.

The best early detection is to use a multitude of methods.

Again, I repeat - I love thermography, but it would not have found my cancer as

there was no tumor.

It is also important to remember that breast cancer in young women is not the

same as in postmenapausal women.

I have been trying to get my sister to have a thermogram, but she won't because

it is too expensive. Whether you believe it or not, Johanne, many people cannot

pay $175 for a breast thermogram. My mammograms are free. I know this is not a

perfect situation, but the reality is that thermography is out of the price

range for many people in this economy. I just lost my job, so I am now one of

them.

ar

>

> Well Ar, I strongly disagree with you on this issue. Mammography is not the

best at detecting tumors but thermography can detect up to 10 years prior to the

tumor formation. I have used it extensively in my practice for the whole body

and the breast. I use it to track when the veins that have formed to feed tumors

dry up during my treatment with others. It has been extremely successful. With

thermography, we are interested in temperature changes that occur symmetrically.

It is easy to do, understand and track for appropriate follow-up.

>

> It is not very expensive and everyone needs baselines instead of shooting in

the dark with this or that. We need tools to track our progress. If it is not

mammography, PET or cat scans, then we need other ones otherwise you are left

wondering and can lose precious time treating the condition.

>

> Johanne Wayne CN

[Guest guest]

We are still mulling over whether or not one should take the risk Mammograms

have in an attempt at 'finding' whether or not one has cancer.

For the general population, there now seems to be consensus in some circles that

exposing millions of women to the 'risks' being discussed in an attempt at

finding a very small percentage of patients that will benefit from the test,

does not justify it.

How many women, if they understood the risk to benefit ratio would opt to have

the Mammogram?

It is a no brainer for someone that had Breast Cancer found during an exam to be

in favor of them. What about the women that will have heroic and unnecessary

treatment for something that might not ever become a problem? Men face the same

dilemma when having the PSA test which is also facing serious questions.

Having millions of men undergo biopsy for something that will often not develop

into anything more than a concern, undergoing possible surgery and surely some

form of heroic treatment, is highly questionable. Doesn't it also expose many

of those men to the possibility that a more serious problem will arise from

their examinations (biopsy) and other forms of treatment?

If it is true that only 2% of women will have their lives extended because of

having Mammograms, and I don't know how they arrive at that, that means 998 are

being exposed unnecessarily. ??

Having these tests is a personal choice and need not be defended nor should any

of us

assail anyone deciding for the tests.

Is it of value to discuss these? Absolutely because I would have been an

unhappy camper had I learned afterward that a 'mapping', or a many location

biopsy of my bladder would have put me at risk for 'seeding' of cancer cells.

My Urologist claims, " I use a lot of water during the exam to minimize seeding " .

Minimize?

I don't want any risk. I do allow my Uro to examine my bladder via the

Cystoscope because it is not systemic but visual. However, because of the

numerous times I've had scopes and catheters inserted, I am 'not the same'

anymore and I must make the decision as to whether or not I will extend the time

between exams. I know from 'studies', that heavy use of catheters, much more

than I've had, has been linked to Squamus Cell Bladder Cancer and I do not need

that problem too.

He wanted me to speak with another physician to 'help' convince me. It's the

old benefit to risk approach but they do not really give one the facts but

rather frame their answers and questions to lead to an acceptance of tests they

want to perform.

Look at the latest re Colonoscopy exams. There is a move to get the 'cleanser'

used to clean the colon banned from use because of the many occurrences of

kidney failure from its use. Now that I know about it, do you think I will

ever again allow its use in my body?

There is also much discussion about the colonoscopy also being of little value.

What makes little sense is an annual colon examination. There are some already

doubting whether or not polyps develop into colon cancer.

Should we, those interested in Alternative health matters, be surprised over

these tests being questioned? I think not.

Joe C.

" THE TEST TO WHICH ALL METHODS OF TREATMENT ARE FINALLY BROUGHT IS WHETHER THEY

ARE LUCRATIVE TO DOCTORS OR NOT " -

Bernard Shaw

[Guest guest]

" I have used it extensively in my practice for the whole body and the breast. I

use it to track when the veins that have formed to feed tumors dry up during my

treatment with others. "

Johanne

--------------

Your message is really informative. Thanks.

Have you used it to track thyroid? Does it also have " in temperature changes

that occur symmetrically " ? Can we track thyroid effectively with thermography?

Can we actually dry up the veins ( shown on thermogram ) with nutritional means?

How?

My gynocologist does not want to see and interprete thermography results, keep

on insisting on mammogram. I have a feeling I may be kicked out of her office

since I have not gone to mammogram for over two years now.

hope

[Guest guest]

My sweet Ar,

we are on the same page. I love your eloquence and yes, it is not an end all but

a great tool in the whole plan. In many parts of the country thermography is

expensive but it is not in every state. You have to check it out.....

Bless you,

Johanne

> >

> > Well Ar, I strongly disagree with you on this issue. Mammography is not the

best at detecting tumors but thermography can detect up to 10 years prior to the

tumor formation. I have used it extensively in my practice for the whole body

and the breast. I use it to track when the veins that have formed to feed tumors

dry up during my treatment with others. It has been extremely successful. With

thermography, we are interested in temperature changes that occur symmetrically.

It is easy to do, understand and track for appropriate follow-up.

> >

> > It is not very expensive and everyone needs baselines instead of shooting in

the dark with this or that. We need tools to track our progress. If it is not

mammography, PET or cat scans, then we need other ones otherwise you are left

wondering and can lose precious time treating the condition.

> >

> > Johanne Wayne CN

>

[Guest guest]

A " specialist " at $ 250 the 8 minutes visit wanted me to do a Colonoscopy. In

the 8 minutes consultation I had the time to ask him about the real risk of the

examination. He told me than in 10 % of the case they could perforate the

intestine.

When I told him that I will pass on his proposal.. he threated me with a risk of

cancer if I didn't do his Colonoscopy.

My answer was to express to him my concern about his mental health and the fact

that he could already had developed a couple brain tumors for telling me this in

this way...and that he should maybe have a CT scan to avoid further

complication.

This pretty much closed our short, but expensive, discussion. He kept my money

and I kept my colon.

The day after I stopped eating very spicy foods and my anal bleeding stopped..

[Guest guest]

I am now touching fifty. For most of my life I have lived in India and for the

past four y ears I am in Malaysia.

In both these places it is very easy to contract amebiasis. The stool tests to

diagnose this have to be for at least 3 consecutive days and even then it is

hard to detect.

Most people even doctors go by the classical definitions of dysentery ( is there

blood in the stool, etc, etc).

And thus treatment is not often given.

Should it be given it can recur -even if a follow up is done...

I have chronic loose motions and other symptoms quite in tune with amebiasis but

when I go to the doctor I have come across two wonderful reactions when I said

that I cannot " stomach " the usual medicines for this.

1. colonoscopy was suggested

2. it is " irritable bowel " and I should take probiotics!

With my homeopath's help the symptoms are slowly getting under control. I can

live with this and prefer not to die of perforation for fear of perforation!

Now and then I get a kind of blind spot in one eye-for a small amount of time.

When I told my eye doctor about this he said I should have my cholesterol

checked which will be done by inserting a needle into my neck! The same day I

visited my homeopath who was round the corner and I have not had the same

problem now for a long time.

Why will one take a percentage risk in order to get well?!

It is not the doctors who are at fault by their increasing reliance on gadgetry

wihtout increasing first their own analysis by non-invasive methods.

When my husband had amoebic abscess of the liver, we were extremely poor and a

friend rushed us to a hospital where we ended up having to pay a lot but where

the doctors poked and prodded my husband's liver without getting anywhere while

my father ( an old Army doctor) who lived miles away had already diagnosed it by

the pain in the right shoulder. But those days there was no internet and so we

got his letter many days later.

Thus it would be doubtful that I should either waste money or regret I cannot

afford it rather than go in for such things should I come to this pass.

I could not resist writing all this as ever sincere My dog has been having what

I think is mammary gland tumour, kind people tell me to rush to the doctor-while

at this moment the tumour has shrunk and she is leading a very good life.

The reliance on this system has become akin to that of the village witch doctor

-if you don't go a curse might fall on you!

There are many many times that one should go to the Doctor but it is as

essential to read up well and make informed choices.

A " specialist " at $ 250 the 8 minutes visit wanted me to do a Colonoscopy.

In the 8 minutes consultation I had the time to ask him about the real risk of

the examination. He told me than in 10 % of the case they could perforate the

intestine.

This pretty much closed our short, but expensive, discussion. He kept my money

and I kept my colon.

The day after I stopped eating very spicy foods and my anal bleeding stopped..

[Guest guest]

I don't know where to ask this but is there anyone here who has or who knows

someone who has cancer without formal detection- I mean surely there should be

signs and symptoms which might lead one to be convinced?

It might b e a silly question but still I am curious...

My sweet Ar,

we are on the same page. I love your eloquence and yes, it is not an end all

but a great tool in the whole plan. In many parts of the country thermography is

expensive but it is not in every state. You have to check it out.....

Bless you,

Johanne

[Guest guest]

Gita,

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking below?

>

> I don't know where to ask this but is there anyone here who has or who knows

someone who has cancer without formal detection- I mean surely there should be

signs and symptoms which might lead one to be convinced?

> It might b e a silly question but still I am curious...

[Guest guest]

gita_madhu@... writes:

> don't know where to ask this but is there anyone here who has or who

> knows someone who has cancer without formal detection- I mean surely there

> should be signs and symptoms which might lead one to be convinced?

> It might b e a silly question but still I am curious...

>

Get an ultrasound and MRI