Mammograms Lead To Invalid Diagnoses, Cause Harm


Mammograms Leads To Invalid Diagnoses, Causes Harm

The global juggernaut of unremitting and unapologetic breast cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment persists. 

As we have recently reported on, high gravitas journals such as BMJ have begun to publish studies indicating that ‘cancer screening has never saved lives,’ or that what conventional medical authorities considered for decades to be ‘cancer’ really wasn’t after all.  

In the latest BMJ study on the topic titled, “Effectiveness of and overdiagnosis from mammography screening in the Netherlands: population based study,” researchers analyzed stage specific incidence of breast cancer in the Netherlands in women who had been enrolled to receive mammography screening every other year since since 1989 (ages 50-69) and 1997 (ages 70-75). The study evaluated breast cancer mortality and the rate of breast cancer overdiagnosis.

The main outcome measures for stage specific age adjusted incidence of breast cancer from 1989 to 2012 were described a follows:

“The extra numbers of in situ and stage 1 breast tumours associated with screening were estimated by comparing rates in women aged 50-74 with those in age groups not invited to screening. Overdiagnosis was estimated after subtraction of the lead time cancers. Breast cancer mortality reductions and overdiagnosis during 2010-12 were computed without (scenario 1) and with (scenario 2) a cohort effect on mortality secular trends.”

The authors summarize their findings:

“The Dutch mammography screening programme seems to have little impact on the burden of advanced breast cancers, which suggests a marginal effect on breast cancer mortality. About half of screen detected breast cancers would represent overdiagnosis.”

As discussed more specifically in the study,

“Overdiagnosis has increased over time with the extension of screening to women aged 70-75, and with the replacement of film based mammography by digital mammography. In 2009-11, 51% of in situ tumours and stage 1 cancers found in women aged 50-74 and 52% of screen detected cancers would represent overdiagnosis.” 

The study makes clear that the primary goal of cancer screening, namely, to decrease cancer mortality, is not being reached. Instead, as high as 1 in every 2 persons diagnosed with cancer are overdiagnosed — a euphemistic term to describe being falsely labeled with a potentially life-threatening disease. In situ ‘cancer,’ for instance, is profoundly misunderstood within the conventional medical establishment. Despite a 2012 study commissioned by the National Cancer Institute and published in NEJM which found that ductal carcinoma in situ was misunderstood as cancer over the past three decades, and should in fact be reclassified as benign or indolent lesion of epithelial origin, both medical professionals, the media, and the lay public still depend on outdated and outright false information, the consequences of which can be devastating to the health of the public. For instance, it has been estimated that 1.3 million women have been wrongly diagnosed and treated for ‘breast cancer’ over the past 30 years.

Overdiagnosis, and subsequent overtreatment, for breast cancer also has profound adverse psychospiritual and physical effects. As I have reported previously in, “’Hidden Dangers’ of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About,” women who have been falsely diagnosed with breast cancer, even three years after being declared free of cancer, “consistently reported greater negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes.”

Moreover, not only do these women often undergo lumpectomy, mastectomy, chemotherapy and/or radiation treatment, and follow up drug therapy with highly toxic agents like Tamoxifen and Arimidex — the former of which is classified as a carcinogen by the WHO and ACS — but their mistaken diagnoses are acknowledged to be ‘overdiagnoses’ and therefore contribute to the illusion that their lives ‘were saved,’ and that mammography and agressive treatment is improving survival outcomes. To the contrary, these woman have survived despite their overdiagnosis and overtreatment (even though, assuredly, both the quality and duration of their lives have been significantly reduced).

The study concluded with the following highly provocative assessment, which implies that x-ray mammography not only doesn’t save lives but is probably increasing mortality:

“The data on advanced breast cancer in the Netherlands indicate that the Dutch national mammography screening programme would have had little influence on the decreases in breast cancer mortality observed over the past 24 years.This conclusion accords with the mounting evidence that randomised trials have overestimated the ability of mammography screening to reduce the risk of deaths from breast cancer in the entire life period after first exposure to mammography screening.44 45 46 In contrast, the extent of overdiagnosis is continuously increasing with the invitation of older women to screening and the adoption of imaging technologies able to detect increasingly smaller breast tumours, most of which are of unknown clinical importance.” [Bold emphasis added]

Mammograms Increase Risk Of Breast Cancer, Here Are The Safe Alternatives For Breast Exams.


  breastexam

You may have heard that mammograms, the tests that are commonly used to detect breast cancer, can actually increase the risk cancer. Well, you’re not wrong! Yet, these breast screenings are considered to be the most effective form of detecting breast cancer, at least according to the Center For Disease Control (CDC).

There’s actually an overwhelming amount of research that proves mammograms can have a negative impact on your health and can even result in misdiagnoses. Staying on top of breast health is still important, but how can you avoid mammograms? Thankfully, there are numerous safe alternatives to this method of breast screening.

Why Mammograms May Threaten Your Health

If you get mammograms periodically, I would highly advise you consider alternative means of testing for breast cancer. There are numerous studies that suggest mammograms can not only be ineffective at identifying cancer, but are harmful to your health as well. To start, let’s look at the studies that test the effectiveness of mammograms for identifying cancer.

One of the biggest issues with mammograms is over-diagnosis and, as a result, over-treatment. A National Cancer Institute commissioned an expert panel that concluded that “early stage cancers” are not cancer, they are benign or indolent growths. This means that millions of women were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer over the past few decades and have been subject to harmful treatment, when they would have been better off leaving it untreated or diagnosed; frighteningly, it is not uncommon for a breast cancer misdiagnosis to occur.

Another study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal concluded that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates. The researchers found no evidence to suggest that mammograms are more effective than personal breast exams at detecting cancer in the designated age group. The study involved 90, 000 Canadian women and compared breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59 (source).

22% of screenings detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial. The doctors explained: “This means that 106 of the 44,925 healthy women in the screening group were diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer unnecessarily, which resulted in needless surgical interventions, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination of these therapies.”

 In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review of breast cancer screening and mammographs, the authors concluded, “Screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. This means that for every 2000 women screened for 10 years, one will have her life prolonged, and 10 healthy women who would not have been diagnosed if they had not been screened, will be treated unnecessarily.”

Perhaps the most notable information was provided by the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative. The board was asked to create an unbiased review of mammography screening. The board comprises a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist.

The Swiss Medical Board reported that for every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening starting at age 50:

  • 490-670 women will likely have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination
  • 70-100 will likely have an unnecessary biopsy
  • 3-14 will likely be over-diagnosed with a breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent

Given the overwhelming amount of research showing the ineffectiveness of mammograms, the board recommended completely abolishing mammogram screenings. In addition, approximately 50 percent of women have dense breast tissue, meaning that it’s difficult for mammographs to even process. Both dense breast tissue and cancer appear white on an X-ray, thus it’s extremely difficult and practically impossible for a doctor to detect cancer with this type of tissue (source).

Mammograms are not only often ineffective, but they could do more harm than good as well. A study published in the British Medical Journal in 2012 proved that women carrying the BRCA 1/2 mutation are extremely susceptible to developing radiation-induced cancer, meaning that mammograms are much more harmful to them. Women with this mutated gene who were exposed to diagnostic radiation before the age of 30 were found to be twice as likely to develop breast cancer in comparison to women without that mutation.

The study also found that the radiation-induced cancer was dose-responsive; in other words, the higher the dosage, the greater their risk of developing cancer. The authors stated, “The results of this study support the use of non-ionizing radiation imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for surveillance in young women with BRCA 1/2 mutations.”

Even though this research suggests women with this mutated gene shouldn’t have a mammogram annually, since it can literally double their risk of developing breast cancer, the National Cancer Institute still suggests that they continue to do so starting at the age of 25.

Another study in the British Medical Journal from December 2011 questioned whether or not breast cancer screenings did more harm than good, and as it turns out, it does more harm indeed! 

So you can get a clear picture, you can get as much radiation from one mammogram screening as you could from 1,000 chest X-rays. Mammograms also tightly compress your breasts, which can result in a greater spread of cancerous cells if they already exist at the time of the test. Dr. Samuel Epstein, one of the world’s top cancer experts, said: “The premenopausal 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.”

USA Today reported on a new breast screening technology, 3-D mammography, which is said to double the amount of radiation exposure. The article explains, “Radiation is a known cause of breast cancer. Researchers in recent years have become concerned about radiation exposure from medical imaging, particularly CT scans. A 2009 analysis estimated that CT scans cause about 29,000 cancers and 14,500 deaths a year.”

The following video is taken from The Truth About Cancer, in which Ty Bollinger interviews Dr. Ben Johnson on the correlation between mammograms and breast cancer:

Alternatives to Mammograms for Cancer Screening:

If you’ve already had a mammogram or multiple in your life, don’t stress too much! If you’re concerned about the radiation associated with the testing, there are numerous other alternatives to test for breast cancer that are just as effective, if not more.

Dr. Ben Johnson suggests, “Well there’s two better options. If you’ve got a lump, if you think you’ve got something, ultrasound is great. It’s a test of anatomy… But if you’re looking about prevention, if you’re talking about screening, there’s really only one device out there and that is thermography. An infrared thermal camera. Nothing touches the lady. Nothing smashes her breasts. There’s no cancer causing radiation.”

He continues to say, “So, that would be like an ultrasound because they can see the lump, they can see its consistency. They can see where there’s calcium in it. And they can look at blood flow because tumors are going to have increased blood flow. So, for instance, a sensitivity of ultrasound is up around 80%. It’s much higher than mammograms. And the sensitivity is higher too.”

Thermography is highly recommended as an alternative breast cancer test as it’s non-invasive and can even detect tumour activity years before a mammogram could. A 2008 study published in the American Journal of Surgery stated that breast thermography has a 97% “sensitivity rating” for finding malignancies before a visible tumour has been formed. Contact the American College of Clinical Thermography for more information.

Another alternative is the ONCObolt, which was designed by Purdue University researchers Dr. Dorothy and Dr. James Morré. ONCObolt tests for the universal cancer cell marker ENOX2 and can also identify the specific origin of cancer cells in the bloodstream. ONCOblot is has an astonishing 99% accuracy rate for discovering tumours when they are tinier than a pinhead. To learn more, check out the Oncoblot website or talk to a health professional.

To be clear, I am not a doctor. I am simply someone who is extremely passionate about exposing the cancer industry and providing people with safe alternatives to conventional testing and treatment. It’s crucial that we spread awareness about this topic, because so many of the conventional methods or diagnosis and treatment cause cancer including the tests and treatments involving radiation and especially chemotherapy. When we open up the dialogue to actually suggest better methods of testing and treatment, we promote positive change, and at the very least, educate one another.

If you have any questions about this article or about conventional treatments, please feel free to reach out to me, but I would also strongly advise consulting with your doctor, preferably a naturopath!

‘Hidden Dangers’ of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About


Study Finds Women Still Suffering 3 Years After Breast Cancer False-Positive

Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the promotion of breast cancer itself. 

A new study published in the Annals of Family Medicine titled, Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography, brings to the forefront a major underreported harm of breast screening programs: the very real and lasting trauma associated with a false-positive diagnosis of breast cancer.[1]

The study found that women with false-positive diagnoses of breast cancer, even three years after being declared free of cancer, “consistently reported greater negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes.”

The psychosocial and existential parameters adversely affected were:

  • Sense of dejection
  • Anxiety
  • Negative impact on behavior
  • Negative impact on sleep
  • Degree of breast self-examination
  • Negative impact on sexuality
  • Feeling of attractiveness
  • Ability to keep ‘mind off things’
  • Worries about breast cancer
  • Inner calm
  • Social network
  • Existential values

What is even more concerning is that “[S]ix months after final diagnosis, women with false-positive findings reported changes in existential values and inner calmness as great as those reported by women with a diagnosis of breast cancer.”

In other words, even after being “cleared of cancer,” the measurable adverse psychospiritual effects of the trauma of diagnosis were equivalent to actually having breast cancer.

Given that the cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography is at least 50%,[2] this is an issue that will affect the health of millions of women undergoing routine breast screening.

The Curse of False Diagnosis and ‘Bone-Pointing’

Also, we must be cognizant of the fact that these observed ‘psychosocial’ and ‘existential’ adverse effects don’t just cause some vaguely defined ‘mental anguish,’ but translate into objectively quantifiable physiological consequences of a dire nature.

For instance, last year, a groundbreaking study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that, based on data on more than 6 million Swedes aged 30 and older, the risk of suicide was found to be up to 16 times higher and the risk of heart-related death up to 26.9 times higher during the first week following a positive versus a negative cancer diagnosis.[3]

This was the first study of its kind to confirm that the trauma of diagnosis can result in, as the etymology of the Greek word trauma reveals, a “physical wound.” In the same way as Aborigonal cultures had a ‘ritual executioner’ or ‘bone pointer’ known as a Kurdaitcha who by pointing a bone at a victim with the intention of cursing him to death, resulting in the actual self-willed death of the accursed, so too does the modern ritual of medicine reenact ancient belief systems and power differentials, with the modern physician, whether he likes it or not, a ‘priest of the body.’; we must only look to the well-known dialectic of the placebo and nocebo effects to see these powerful, “irrational” processes still operative.

Millions Harmed by Breast Screening Despite Assurances to the Contrary

Research of this kind clearly indicates that the conventional screening process carries health risks, both to body and mind, which may outstrip the very dangers the medical surveillance believes itself responsible for, and effective at, mitigating.  For instance, according to a groundbreaking study published last November in New England Journal of Medicine, 1.3 million US women were overdiagnosed and overtreated over the past 30 years.[4] These are the ‘false positives’ that were never caught, resulting in the unnecessary irradiation, chemotherapy poisoning and surgery of approximately 43,000 women each year.  Now, when you add to this dismal statistic the millions of ‘false positives’ that while being caught nevertheless resulted in producing traumas within those women, breast screening begins to look like a veritable nightmare of iatrogenesis.

And this does not even account for the radiobiological dangers of the x-ray mammography screening process itself, which may be causing an epidemic of mostly unackowledged radiation-induced breast cancers in exposed populations.

For instance, in 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme,” revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times – but possibly as much as six times – more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.[5]

Even the breast cancer treatment protocols themselves have recently been found to contribute to enhancing cancer malignancy and increasing mortality. Chemotherapy and radiation both appear to enrich the cancer stem cell populations, which are at the root of breast cancer malignancy and invasiveness. Last year, in fact, the prestigious journal Cancer, a publication of the American Cancer Society, published a study performed by researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center showing that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumors than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.[6]

What we are increasingly bearing witness to in the biomedical literature itself is that the conventional breast cancer prevention and treatment strategy and protocols are bankrupt.  Or, from the perspective of the more cynical observer, it is immensely successful, owing to the fact that it is driving billions of dollars or revenue by producing more of what it claims to be fighting.

The time has come for a radical transformation in the way that we understand, screen for, prevent and treat cancer. It used to be that natural medical advocates didn’t have the so-called peer-reviewed ‘evidence’ to back up their intuitive and/or anecdotal understanding of how to keep the human body in health and balance. That time has passed. GreenMedInfo.com, for instance, has over 20,000 abstracts indexed in support of a return to a medical model where the ‘alternative’ is synthetic, invasive, emergency-modeled medicine, and the norm is using food, herbs, minerals, vitamins and lifestyle changes to maintain, promote and regain optimal health.


[1]John Brodersen, Volkert Dirk Siersma. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013 Mar-Apr;11(2):106-15. PMID: 23508596

[2] Rebecca A Hubbard, Karla Kerlikowske, Chris I Flowers, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Weiwei Zhu, Diana L Miglioretti. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18 ;155(8):481-92. PMID: 22007042

[3]Research: Come Diagnoses Kill You Quicker Than The Cancer, April 2012

[4]30 Years of Breast Screening: 1.3 Million Women Wrongly Treated, Nov. 2012

[5]GreenMedInfo.com, How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating the Epidemic of Breast Cancer, June 2012

[6]GreenMedInfo.com, Study: Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More Malignant, June 2012

‘Hidden Dangers’ of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About


Study Finds Women Still Suffering 3 Years After Breast Cancer False-Positive

Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the promotion of breast cancer itself. 

A new study published in the Annals of Family Medicine titled, Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography, brings to the forefront a major underreported harm of breast screening programs: the very real and lasting trauma associated with a false-positive diagnosis of breast cancer.[1]

The study found that women with false-positive diagnoses of breast cancer, even three years after being declared free of cancer, “consistently reported greater negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes.”

The psychosocial and existential parameters adversely affected were:

  • Sense of dejection
  • Anxiety
  • Negative impact on behavior
  • Negative impact on sleep
  • Degree of breast self-examination
  • Negative impact on sexuality
  • Feeling of attractiveness
  • Ability to keep ‘mind off things’
  • Worries about breast cancer
  • Inner calm
  • Social network
  • Existential values

What is even more concerning is that “[S]ix months after final diagnosis, women with false-positive findings reported changes in existential values and inner calmness as great as those reported by women with a diagnosis of breast cancer.”

In other words, even after being “cleared of cancer,” the measurable adverse psychospiritual effects of the trauma of diagnosis were equivalent to actually having breast cancer.

Given that the cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography is at least 50%,[2] this is an issue that will affect the health of millions of women undergoing routine breast screening.

The Curse of False Diagnosis and ‘Bone-Pointing’

Also, we must be cognizant of the fact that these observed ‘psychosocial’ and ‘existential’ adverse effects don’t just cause some vaguely defined ‘mental anguish,’ but translate into objectively quantifiable physiological consequences of a dire nature.

For instance, last year, a groundbreaking study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that, based on data on more than 6 million Swedes aged 30 and older, the risk of suicide was found to be up to 16 times higher and the risk of heart-related death up to 26.9 times higher during the first week following a positive versus a negative cancer diagnosis.[3]

This was the first study of its kind to confirm that the trauma of diagnosis can result in, as the etymology of the Greek word trauma reveals, a “physical wound.” In the same way as Aborigonal cultures had a ‘ritual executioner’ or ‘bone pointer’ known as a Kurdaitcha who by pointing a bone at a victim with the intention of cursing him to death, resulting in the actual self-willed death of the accursed, so too does the modern ritual of medicine reenact ancient belief systems and power differentials, with the modern physician, whether he likes it or not, a ‘priest of the body.’; we must only look to the well-known dialectic of the placebo and nocebo effects to see these powerful, “irrational” processes still operative.

Millions Harmed by Breast Screening Despite Assurances to the Contrary

Research of this kind clearly indicates that the conventional screening process carries health risks, both to body and mind, which may outstrip the very dangers the medical surveillance believes itself responsible for, and effective at, mitigating.  For instance, according to a groundbreaking study published last November in New England Journal of Medicine, 1.3 million US women were overdiagnosed and overtreated over the past 30 years.[4] These are the ‘false positives’ that were never caught, resulting in the unnecessary irradiation, chemotherapy poisoning and surgery of approximately 43,000 women each year.  Now, when you add to this dismal statistic the millions of ‘false positives’ that while being caught nevertheless resulted in producing traumas within those women, breast screening begins to look like a veritable nightmare of iatrogenesis.

And this does not even account for the radiobiological dangers of the x-ray mammography screening process itself, which may be causing an epidemic of mostly unackowledged radiation-induced breast cancers in exposed populations.

For instance, in 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme,” revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times – but possibly as much as six times – more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.[5]

Even the breast cancer treatment protocols themselves have recently been found to contribute to enhancing cancer malignancy and increasing mortality. Chemotherapy and radiation both appear to enrich the cancer stem cell populations, which are at the root of breast cancer malignancy and invasiveness. Last year, in fact, the prestigious journal Cancer, a publication of the American Cancer Society, published a study performed by researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center showing that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumorsthan the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.[6]

What we are increasingly bearing witness to in the biomedical literature itself is that the conventional breast cancer prevention and treatment strategy and protocols are bankrupt.  Or, from the perspective of the more cynical observer, it is immensely successful, owing to the fact that it is driving billions of dollars or revenue by producing more of what it claims to be fighting.

The time has come for a radical transformation in the way that we understand, screen for, prevent and treat cancer. It used to be that natural medical advocates didn’t have the so-called peer-reviewed ‘evidence’ to back up their intuitive and/or anecdotal understanding of how to keep the human body in health and balance. That time has passed.

Mammograms Again Proven Harmful to Women and Actually May Increase Cancer Risk


Flickr - Mammogram - euthman

Mammograms Send Women To Their Deathbeds Faster And Increase Their Risk of Breast Cancer As Much As 30 Percent

Even with the established evidence which supports the long-term health risks and danger of mammograms, the medical community still pushes them like pancakes. Besides overdiagnosis and the unnecessary treatment of insignificant cancers, mammograms cause radiation-induced breast cancer themselves, increasing several risk factors for the disease.

Increases Breast Cancer Mortality

Mammography is the most widely used screening modality for breast cancer and with good reason for the medical community. It gives them more patients. Breast cancer screenings result in an increase in breast cancer mortality and fail to address prevention.

Diagnosis of cancers that would otherwise never have caused symptoms or death in a woman’s lifetime can expose a woman to the immediate risks of therapy (surgical deformity or toxicities from radiation therapy, hormone therapy, or chemotherapy), late sequelae (lymphedema), and late effects of therapeutic radiation (new cancers, scarring, or cardiac toxicity). Although the specific plan of oncologists is usually to recommend tailored treatments according to tumor characteristics, there is still no reliable way to distinguish which cancer would never progress in an individual patient; and consequently treatments are lumped into the “treat all just in case” just in case category.

Breast cancer screening does not play a direct role in the reductions of deaths due to breast cancer in almost every region in the world. Part of the failure correlates to more than 70 percent of mammographically detected tumors being false positives leading to unnecessary and invasive biopsies and subsequent cancer treatment such as radiation which itself causes cancer.

More Than Half Result In Overdiagnosis

Out of all breast cancers detected by screening mammograms, up to54% are estimated to be results of overdiagnosis. The best estimations of overdiagnosis come from either long-term follow-up of RCTs of screening or the calculation of excess incidence in large screening programs.

Despite no evidence ever having supported any recommendations made for regular periodic screening and mammography at any age, malicious recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) and the American College of Radiology (ACR) on breast cancer screening are now promoting that breast cancer screening should begin at age 40 and earlier in high-risk patients. Published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology (JACR), the recommendations released by the SBI and ACR state that the average patient should begin annual breast cancer screening at age 40. They also target women in their 30s if they are considered “high risk” as they stated.

On average, 10% of women will be recalled from each screening examination for further testing, and only 5 of the 100 women recalled will have cancer. Approximately 50% of women screened annually for 10 years in the United States will experience a false positive, of whom7% to 17% will have biopsies. The risk of cancer increases as much as 30% in a given 10 year period of women being exposed to yearly mammograms.

Inaccurate Even When Cancer Is Present

6% to 46% of women with invasive cancer will have negative mammograms, especially if they are young, have dense breasts, or have mucinous, lobular, or rapidly growing cancers.

Radiation-induced mutations can cause breast cancer, especially if exposure occurs before age 30 years and is at high doses, such as from mantle radiation therapy for Hodgkin disease. The breast dose associated with a typical two-view mammogram is approximately 4 mSv and extremely unlikely to cause cancer. One Sv is equivalent to 200 mammograms. Latency is at least 8 years, and the increased risk is lifelong.

The rate of advanced breast cancer for U.S. women 25 to 39 years old nearly doubled from 1976 to 2009, a difference too great to be a matter of chance.

In 1976, 1.53 out of every 100,000 American women 25 to 39 years old was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer, a study in the American Medical Association found. By 2009, the rate had almost doubled to 2.9 per 100,000 women in that age group — a difference too large to be a chance result.

Cause Far More Harm Than Good

A disturbing study published in the New England Journal of Medicine is bringing mainstream attention to the fact that mammography has caused far more harm than good in the millions of women who have employed it over the past 30 years as their primary strategy in the fight against breast cancer

Titled “Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence,” researchers estimated that among women younger than 40 years of age, breast cancer was overdiagnosed, i.e. “tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms,” in 1.3 million U.S. women over the past 30 years. In 2008, alone, “breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed.

Most mammography-detected breast cancer presents without symptoms in the majority of women within which it is detected, and if left untreated will not progress to cause harm to women. Indeed, without x-ray diagnostic technologies, many if not most of the women diagnosed with it would never have known they had it in the first place. The journal Lancet Oncology, in fact, published a cohort study last year finding that even clinically verified “invasive” cancers appear to regress with time if left untreated:

“[We] believe many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress.”

The study authors point out “The introduction of screening mammography in the United States has been associated with a doubling in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer that are detected each year.” And yet, they noted, only 6.5% of these early-stage breast cancer cases were expected to progress to advanced disease. Mammography-detected breast cancer and related ‘abnormal breast findings,’ in other words, may represent natural, benign variations in breast morphology. Preemptive treatment strategies, however, are still employed today as the standard of care, with mastectomy rates actually increasing since 2004.

It is also questionable whether screening mammograms can even provide genuine ‘early diagnosis’ as is frequently claimed. A new blood test being developed in America and Nottingham, England will pick up on proteins developed by the very earliest ‘rogue’ cells almost before a cancer has formed. In the press release the scientists claim that this is a good 4 years before a mammogram can show up a tumour. Apparently, a cancer makes about 40 divisions during its life, and mammograms cannot pick up a breast tumour until it is of a sufficient size, usually around 20 such divisions. So much for early diagnosis!

These concerns are part of a growing trend. Perhaps one of the most damning reports was a large scale study by Johns Hopkins published in 2008 in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21:2302-2303). In the Background to the research it was pointed out that breast cancer diagnosis rates increased significantly in four Scandanavian counties after women there began receiving mammograms every two years.

The Dangers of Routine Mammography

The recent Komen controversy has the media buzzing about a reversal of policy over its decision to cut funding to PP and mammogram screening procedures. The real issue for women’s health is not about funding but about the deadly effects from radiation spewing from mammogram screening devices.

Routine mammograms are far less effective at preventing breast cancer deaths and far more expected to cause unnecessary procedures, over-treatment and ultimately accelerate death more than any other screening method on women.

  1. A routine mammogram screening typically involves four x-rays, two per breast. This amounts to more than 150 times the amount of radiation that is used for a single chest x-ray. Bottom line: screening mammograms send a strong dose of ionizing radiation through your tissues. Any dose of ionizing radiation is capable of contributing to cancer and heart disease.
  2. Screening mammograms increase the risk of developing cancer in premenopausal women.
  3. Screening mammograms require breast tissue to be squeezed firmly between two plates. This compressive force can damage small blood vessels which can result in existing cancerous cells spreading to other areas of the body.
  4. Cancers that exist in pre-menopausal women with dense breast tissue and in postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy are commonly undetected by screening mammograms.
  5. For women who have a family history of breast cancer and early onset of menstruation, the risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer with screening mammograms when no cancer actually exists can be as high as 100 percent.

A Better Solution: Thermography

Thermography (also called thermology) is a little-known technique for breast cancer detection that’s been available since the 1960s. It’s non-invasive and non-toxic, using an infrared camera to measure thermal emissions from the entire chest and auxiliary regions. Cancerous tissue develops a blood supply to feed a growing tumor, and the abnormal blood vessel formations generate significantly more heat than the surrounding healthy tissue. The infrared camera detects the differences in heat emitted from abnormal tissue (including malignancies, benign tumors and fibrocystic disease), as compared to normal tissue. There is no physical contact with the patient, who stands several feet away from the camera while a technician takes a series of images.

A second set of images is taken following a “cold challenge”. The patient places her hands in ice cold water for one minute causing healthy tissue to constrict while the abnormal tumor tissue remains hot. The infrared scanner easily distinguishes the difference, and these images are compared with the first set for confirmation.

Thermography can detect abnormalities before the onset of a malignancy, and as early as ten years before being recognized by other procedures such as manual breast exam, mammography, ultrasound or MRI. This makes it potentially life-saving for women who are unknowingly developing abnormalities, as it can take several years for a cancerous tumor to develop and be detected by mammogram. Its accuracy is also impressive, with false negative and false positive rates at 9% for each. Thermography is also an effective way to establish a baseline for comparison with future scans; therefore, women should begin screening by the age of 25.

Although widely embraced by alternative health care practitioners, thermography’s obscurity in the mainstream means that too many women rely on mammograms as their only option. There are several reasons for thermography’s lack of support by the conventional medical community. Early thermal scanners were not very sensitive, nor were they well-tested before being used in clinical practice. This resulted in many misdiagnosed cases and its utter dismissal by the medical community. Since then the technology has advanced dramatically and thermography now uses highly sensitive state-of-the-art infrared cameras and sophisticated computers. A wealth of clinical research attests to its high degree of sensitivity and accuracy. In 1982, the FDA approved thermography for breast cancer screening, yet most of the medical establishment is either unaware of it or still associates it with its early false start. Since most women are also uninformed of the technology there is no pressure on the medical community to support it.

Modern-day breast thermography boasts vastly improved technology and more extensive scientific clinical research.

In fact, the article references data from major peer review journals and research on more than 300,000 women who have been tested using the technology. Combined with the successes in detecting breast cancer with greater accuracy than other methods, the technology is slowly gaining ground among more progressive practitioners.

When Should I Begin Regular Mammograms?


For women weighing whether to have a mammogram for early detection of breast cancer, the findings of some recent studies can seem especially confusing.

This month, a team of researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School published a review of recent mammography studies. They concluded that, for women in their 40s, the benefits of mammograms aren’t as great as they’re often touted to be, and the potential downsides – such as the likelihood of having a repeat screening or biopsy that doesn’t find cancer – are greater than for older women.

The benefits of mammography vary with age. The review found that for women in their 40s, mammography can decrease the risk of dying of breast cancer by 15 percent. That may sound like a substantial drop, but, it needs to be viewed in light of very small number of women in their 40s who die of the disease. The risk of a woman in the 40-49 age range dying of breast cancer is about 0.245 percent. With mammography, her risk would decrease to 0.205. This means that annual mammograms for women in their 40s could save four lives for every 10,000 women screened.

Another recent study challenged the notion that deciding to have a mammogram is a simple, uncomplicated process for many women. That study, known as the Canadian National Breast Screening Study, found that annual mammography screening did not reduce deaths from breast cancer for women ages 40-59. It also found that screening can have negative consequences: one in five of the cancers that were treated after being detected by mammography would have posed no threat to the patients’ health.

As thorough and well-designed as the study was, it hardly represents the last word on the usefulness of mammography. Its findings conflict with those of a dozen other studies that have found that mammograms do indeed save lives. And it conflicts with the recommendations of many experts, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which estimates that breast cancer screening reduces the relative risk of death by about 15 percent in women ages 40-59.

To help sort out the conflicting and sometimes confusing data, we asked Eric Winer, MD, director of the Breast Oncology Program at the Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers at Dana-Farber, to offer some guidelines for women to follow and to discuss why different studies often reach different conclusions. His response is below:

“As treatment for breast cancer becomes more individualized, screening for the disease needs to be individualized as well. At the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, we endorse the U.S. Preventive Health Task Force recommendations, which are yearly or every-other-year mammograms for women over the age of 50 (until about 75). Women between the ages of 40 and 49 should discuss the pros and cons of mammography screening with their health care provider.

“Besides the well-known cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, inherited abnormalities in an array of other genes can also raise breast cancer risk. Women who have had certain benign breast conditions may be at an increased risk as well, as may women with a family history of breast cancer. Women with gene mutations that predispose them to breast cancer typically begin regular screening at an early age, which usually involves breast MRI in addition to mammography. For other women who are at high risk, routine screening mammography may not be sufficient, and other approaches, including MRI screening, are being studied.”

Cancer screening expert to radiologists: Stop lying about mammograms


When it comes to using mammograms as a tool to screen women for breast cancer, how do you define success? At a minimum, you’d want to know that women who get mammograms are less likely to die of breast cancer than women who didn’t get the tests.

So the big Canadian study published last week in the British Medical Journal was rather inconvenient for the die-hard fans of mammography. The study sorted nearly 90,000 women into two groups. About half of them had mammograms, and the other half didn’t. Those who had the screening tests were more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer.

You might expect this to be useful, by catching cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage. But it didn’t turn out that way. After tracking these women for up to 25 years, the researchers found that women who had mammograms succumbed to breast cancer at the same rate as women who didn’t get the tests.

The American College of Radiology – the medical group that represents the doctors who read mammograms – pounced on the study right away. In a statement, the ACR called the study “incredibly flawed and misleading.” Taking its results seriously “would place a great many women at increased risk of dying unnecessarily from breast cancer,” it warned.

As my colleague Monte Morin reported, the authors of the study said they stood by their results. But the accusations from high-profile radiologists have kept coming.

Now an expert on preventive medicine and screening is fighting back. In an opinion essay published online Wednesday on CNN.com, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice explains why the ACR’s two main arguments against the Canadian National Breast Screening Study study are wrong.

First, the radiology group claimed the Canadian results could not be trusted because the women were screened with “second-hand mammography machines” that were operated by technologists who “were not taught proper positioning,” producing sub-par breast films read by radiologists who “had no specific training in mammographic interpretation.”

Welch sums up the ACR critique like this: “Canada is a Third World country.” Not only is this not true, he writes, it’s disingenuous. That’s because the clinical trials that radiologists cite in favor of mammography are even older than the Canadian study. “In fact, one of the trials most favorable to screening – the Health Insurance Plan of New York’s – dates from two decades before Canada’s, in the early 1960s, when mammography technologies were primitive,” Welch writes.

The ACR’s other complaint is that the Canadian trial stacked the odds against mammography by assigning women with “large incurable cancers” to the group that got the mammograms. “This guaranteed more deaths among the screened women than the control women,” according to the ACR statement.

Once again, Welch isn’t buying it. Critics have made this allegation before, and it’s so serious that Canada’s National Cancer Institute initiated a two-year investigation. As reported in the Canadian Medical Assn. Journal in 1997, the investigators “found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to conceal the alterations.”

Nor is there any evidence of cheating in the data, Welch explains. If the Canadian researchers were shunting the sickest patients into the mammogram group, then there were would be more deaths among women who had mammograms than among women who didn’t. But there weren’t. “The rate of death in the two groups was exactly the same, every year, for 25 years,” Welch writes.

Welch has coauthored many studies about mammography, and he says there’s a good explanation for why mammograms don’t seem to be helpful as a screening tool: the tests find “small, unimportant” abnormalities that are labeled “cancer” but are “not destined to cause them any problems,” he writes. (Also, better treatments have erased much of the advantage of finding cancers early.)

Though some radiologists have accepted the growing evidence that screening mammography is flawed, members of the “old guard” are still quick to attack the studies that don’t fit their worldview, Welch writes. He has some advice for those people: Grow up.

“It’s time to stop the unfounded allegations,” Welch writes on CNN. “It might be standard procedure for politics but not for science. Too much energy has been devoted to discrediting the Canadian study and not enough to understanding it.”

Can You Cut Your Breast Cancer Risk by Skipping Mammograms?


 

Radiographer Susan Ho with cancer survivor Beverley Hunt.

In the US, women are still urged to get an annual mammogram starting at the age of 40, despite the fact that updated guidelines set forth by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2009 urge women to wait until the age of 50, and to only get bi-annual screening thereafter.

Unfortunately, many women are completely unaware that the science simply does not back up the use of routine mammograms as a means to prevent breast cancer death.

What’s worse, the “new and improved” tomosynthesis mammogram, which provides a three-dimensional (3D) image of the breast,1 is now being hoisted on women across the US as “the answer” to mammography’s failing efficacy rates and pattern of harmful misdiagnosis…

Please, don’t get suckered into further doubling your risk for radiation-induced breast cancer by signing up for annual 3D tomosynthesis.

New 3D Mammography is NOT the Solution Women have Been Waiting for…

The primary hazard of conventional 2D imaging is ionizing radiation. According to a 2010 study,2 annual screening using digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40–80 years is associated with an induced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20-25 cases per 100, 000.

This means annual mammograms CAUSE 20-25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women getting the test. Now, 3D tomosynthesis also exposes you to ionizing radiation—and much more of it!

First, in order to achieve the three-dimensional image, the machine moves in an arc around your breast, taking multiple x-rays along the way, which are then computed together into a 3D image. Second, women are still advised to get a conventional 2D mammogram.

How is this addressing the hazards of breast cancer screening using ionizing radiation?

Well, it’s not. After all, that’s what the cancer screen is supposed to do, yet studies have repeatedly shown that mammography causes more widespread harm than good, and has not resulted in reduced breast cancer mortality rates. The hope is that these 3D images will boost the accuracy of diagnosing cancer; alas… this is probably not going to happen.

Why?

Because there’s no way to tell if a little spot on an x-ray (3D or not) is actually cancerous or benign. As image technologies have improved, false positives have increased along with it. Furthermore, what good will it do to identify more and more tiny tumors if the incidence of cancer starts to skyrocket as a result of ever increasing amounts of radiation exposure?

Want to Decrease Your Risk of Breast Cancer? Forgo Screening, Expert Says

In my view, 3D tomosynthesis is a false solution. It’s a sad, flailing attempt to avoid having to admit mammograms are useless, if not dangerous. This truth is absolutely devastating to the cancer industry, which is why they’re fighting tooth and nail to deny it.

The most effective way to decrease women’s risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid attending screening,” writes Peter C. Gotzche, MD of The Nordic Cochrane Centre and author of Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy. “Mammography screening is one of the greatest controversies in healthcare, and the extent to which some scientists have sacrificed sound scientific principles in order to arrive at politically acceptable results in their research is extraordinary. In contrast, neutral observers increasingly find that the benefit has been much oversold and that the harms are much greater than previously believed.”

This fact was revealed in a 2011 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, which found that mammography breast cancer screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which equates to an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent.

As recently reported by The Los Angeles Times,3 yet another study is now putting the thumb-screws on the industry, concluding that women who follow the American Cancer Society’s guidelines to get annual mammograms starting at age 40 not only receive NO additional protection against aggressive breast cancer, but actually experience greater harm through increased false positives and unnecessary treatments, when compared to women who get bi-annual mammograms between the ages of 50 and 74 only (which is what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends).

The article goes on to estimate that if all American women between 66-89 received annual mammograms instead of biannual testing, this results in a staggering 3.86 million more false-positives and 1.15 million more biopsies. This is great for profits. Not so great for you though, who has to pay financially, physically, and emotionally…

“Even after researchers adjusted for confounding factors such as age, place of residence and race, they found no benefit to more frequent screenings,” the LA Times reported.

Analysis of 30 Years of Breast Screening Shows Mammograms Do More Harm than Good

Last November, the New England Journal of Medicine4 also published a shocking analysis of the effects of breast cancer screening in the US over the past three decades, which found that 1.3 million women were misdiagnosed and mistreated as a result. The number of early-stage breast cancers detected have doubled over the past 30 years since the advent of mammography, from 112 to 234 cases per 100,000. Late-stage cancer incidence has decreased by eight percent in the same time frame, from 102 to 94 cases per 100,000.

According to the authors:

“Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.”

The lead author, Dr. Archie Bleyer, recently defended his team’s findings against industry nay-sayers who criticized the analysis, stating:5

“We are disappointed by the comments from the leadership of the mammography community. They reiterate three ‘talking points’ that were voiced after our report was published. First, we undercorrected for an underlying incidence trend of invasive cancer. Since 1986, there has not been an obvious increase in the incidence of invasive cancer. Even if we had used their number — based on data from Connecticut in the years 1940 through 1980 — we would still estimate that from 1979 through 2008 and in 2008 alone, there was an overdiagnosis of breast cancer in 878,000 and 34,000 women, respectively.

Second, it was stated that our data do not reflect the real world. We would argue that it is hard to get more ‘real’ than three decades of data from the world’s preeminent cancer surveillance program.

Third, they say that DCIS should have been excluded. How could we estimate overdiagnosis without including an abnormality that is essentially detected only with mammography and is treated as cancer? And yet the authors of this letter characterize our research as ‘dangerous.’ We are disappointed because to mitigate the problem of overdiagnosis, primary care practitioners, surgeons, oncologists, and the public health community will all need the help of our colleagues in mammography. And the first step in addressing any problem is to acknowledge it.”

Only ONE in 2,000 Women Undergoing Regular Mammogram Screening Will Benefit from it

So what are your chances of being that lucky person who actually benefits from regular mammograms? According to recent findings by the Nordic Cochrane Center, only ONE out of 2,000 women screened regularly for 10 years will actually benefit from screening due to early detection of breast cancer.

Meanwhile, 10 healthy women (out of those 2,000 screened for a decade) will be misdiagnosed, turned into cancer patients, and will be treated unnecessarily.These women will have either a part of their breast or the whole breast removed, and will typically receive radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. This treatment (for a cancer that was non-existent) subsequently increases their risk of dying from complications from the therapy and/or from other diseases associated with radiation and chemo, such as heart disease and cancer. So, to recap, in order for mammographic breast screening to save ONE woman’s life:

  • 2,000 women must be screened for 10 years
  • 200 women will get false positives, and
  • 10 will receive surgery and/or chemotherapy even though they do not actually have cancer

Just because you were treated for cancer does not mean you’re a cancer survivor. If you really didn’t have cancer to begin with, then you’re really just a “cancer treatment survivor.” Yet all women treated for cancer who survive become part of the “cancer survivor” statistic…

Breast Cancer Prevention Strategies

Cancer screening does NOT equate to cancer prevention, and although early detection is important, using a screening method that in and of itself increases your risk of developing cancer is simply not good medicine… Preventing breast cancer is far more important and powerful than simply trying to detect it after it has already formed, which is why I want to share my top tips on how to help prevent this disease in the first place.

In the largest review of research into lifestyle and breast cancer, the American Institute of Cancer Research estimated that about 40 percent of US breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser lifestyle choices.6, 7 I believe these estimates are far too low, and it is more likely that 75 percent to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the recommendations below.

  • Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
  • Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I’m aware of, with no adverse effects. I suggest you try watching my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to learn more.

Remember that if you take oral vitamin D3 supplements, you also need to increase your vitamin K2 intake, as vitamin D increases the need for K2 to function properly. Please consider joining one of GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action’s vitamin D studies to stay on top of your vitamin D performance.

Get plenty of natural vitamin A. There is evidence that vitamin A also plays a role in helping prevent breast cancer.8 It’s best to obtain it from vitamin A-rich foods, rather than a supplement. Your best sources are organic egg yolks,9 raw butter, raw whole milk, and beef or chicken liver.

  • Lymphatic breast massage can help enhance your body’s natural ability to eliminate cancerous toxins. This can be applied by a licensed therapists, or you can implement self-lymphatic massage. It is also promotes self-nurturance.
  • Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.
  • Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
  • Improve your insulin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and making sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.
  • Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It’s important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
  • Drink a half to whole quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
  • Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
  • Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of breast cancer. It shows immense therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.10 It’s important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I’ve provided several absorption tips here.
  • Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
  • Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows breastfeeding can reduce your breast cancer risk.
  • Avoid wearing underwire bras. There is a good deal of data that metal underwire bras can heighten your breast cancer risk.
  • Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
  • Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)

If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.

  • Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk
  • Make sure you’re not iodine deficient, as there’s compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with breast cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,11 author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.

For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein’s book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are too high.

Take Control of Your Health to Avoid Becoming a Statistic

Many women are completely unaware that the science backing the use of mammograms is sorely lacking, and that more women are being harmed by regular mammograms than are saved by them.

Peter C. Gotzche, MD of the Nordic Cochrane Centre’ recently published a groundbreaking book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy. It offers a comprehensive take on the evidence, and a critical look at the scientific disputes and the information provided to women by governments and cancer charities. It also explains why mammography screening is unlikely to be effective today.

Many also do not realize that the “new and improved” 3D tomosynthesis mammogram actually ends up exposing you to MORE cancer-causing ionizing radiation than the older version. Please understand that there are other screening options, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and you have a right to utilize those options. Also remember that in order to truly avoid breast cancer, you need to focus your attention on prevention.

Source: Dr. Mercola

Mammograms Have ‘Limited or No Effect’ on Breast Cancer Deaths.


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/06/mammogram-on-breast-cancer-mortality-rates.aspx?e_cid=20120806_DNL_artNew_1