Breast Cancer Awareness Month (Fuck it)

Yes that's right I said it. FUCK breast cancer awareness month. Up until reading this article written by an aquaintence (with a medical degree), I thought that mammograms were good for women. Although I knew most of the charities were bullshit and that they are just in it for profit and they will never find a "cure" with the billions of dollars they steal from people. Actually, there is a cure for breast cancer - they just don't want you to know - otherwise they'd be out of jobs.

Pink Ribbon Deceit
October 2nd, 2005

It’s Pink Ribbon time when we are all urged do our best to walk and talk for a “Cure”. That’s right; it’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month again. Never mind that the last thing the “cancer cure industry” wants is a cure for cancer. After all, cancer is the single most economically productive disease in the history of mankind. Never mind that valid, successful and inexpensive cures for cancer are ruthlessly suppressed by the cancer industry, including the shameful performance of my profession, organized medicine. Pink Ribbon Season means well crafted messages to maneuver women all over America to have mammograms and undergo dangerous and often unnecessary treatment for it in the common event that the diagnosis of breast cancer is wrong.

Breast Cancer is a largely preventable disease on an epidemic rise and is now the leading killer of woman between 45 and 55, according to Preventing Breast Cancer. The Story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of This Disease. by Dr. John Gofinan. There is no doubt that finding and treating a malignant breast tumor early increases survival by at least 17 ccording to the [highly suspect, Big Pharma dominated] American Cancer Society.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month is, simply put, a corporate strategy , sponsored by, among others, Astra Zeneca, which makes Tamoxifen. Every word, walk and wink associated with the ubiquitous pink ribbon must pass their approval process. Perhaps you have noticed that, under their guidance, “prevention” has become “early detection” and early detection means, pure and simple, mammograms.

But do mammograms detect cancer? Well, no, not particularly well. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon pathology examination, show any presence of cancer.. How’s that? After an invasive technique like mastectomy (removal of a breast), lumpectomy (removal of a lump) or biopsy (sample material removed from the area for study), the false positive rate is between 70 and 80€Right. But the cost is anywhere between $250-$500 per woman per year. You do the math. Industry can well afford to support those “Walk for the Cure” Events. Except they should be renamed “Walk for the Profit”.

Well, when a mammogram says there is no cancer, that’s correct, isn’t it? Actually mammograms are shockingly bad at finding cancers that really are there. Dr. Samuel Epstein in his book, The Politics of Cancer, notes that the false negative rate is, according to the National Cancer Institute, about 40 percent among women ages 40-49. The National Institutes of Health says that mammograms also miss 20 percent of malignant tumors in women.

But at least they can’t do any harm, right? Wrong. Mammograms currently deliver about 1 rad per breast per screening for a glandular dose of 0.1 rad per breast or a total glandular dose of 0.2 rad.. The National Cancer Institute estimates that each rad in a woman between the ages of 35 and 50 increases the risk of breast cancer by 1 o a bilateral mammogram each year increases a woman’s rate of breast cancer by 20ver each decade of screening! This is not a negligible risk.

But wait! There’s more.

Since mammography was introduced, Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), the most common form of breast cancer has increased by 328nd 200f this increase may be largely caused by mammography! Radiation, like that delivered by mammography equipment, is associated with sharp increases in breast cancer. In fact, Dr. John W. Gofman, an expert on the health impact of ionizing radiation, believes that 75f breast cancer can be prevented by avoiding ionizing radiation altogether! Now, that’s good for us, but it’s not good for the people who make mammography equipment. Prevention is, unfortunately, very bad business if you make detection equipment or treatment options for a preventable condition like breast cancer. And there are a host of studies showing that mammography is, at best, a major question and, at worst, a serious problem.

Mammography also may spread existing cancer because, during the procedure, massive, and painful, pressure is applied to the breast. This may cause existing cancer cells to spread before immune processes can kill them (which a healthy immune system does routinely).

And, if you are unlucky enough to carry predisposing genes (Oncolgene A-T, BRCA1 and BRCA2), you are particularly susceptible to even small amounts of radiation and will perhaps be among the estimated 10,000 women who will succumb this year to breast cancer directly caused by mammography.

These are not unknown, controversial facts touted by obscure researcher. Dr. Gofman analyses NCI data showing that among women under 35, mammography can induce 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Canadian National Breast Cancer Study Canadian study tracking outcome showed that woman40-50 who had mammograms had a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality (that is, death) compared to similar woman who did not and that they were more likely to die of breast cancer if they were screened regularly than if they were not!

So what do I, as a woman, as a physician and as a health advocate suggest? First of all, I recommend finding, and using regularly, another screening technology called “thermography” which detects cancer sooner, far more accurately and with no harm at all to the body since it relies on heat emitted by your body and takes a sensitive heat picture of your body. Because malignancies grow extra blood vessels, they emit more heat so they are detectible early and without danger. So, from where I sit,

1. Women under 35 are not well served by mammograms as a screening tool and should not allow mammograms to be performed

2. Although the American Cancer Society advocates mammogram screening for woman 40-49 every two years, I suggest thermography, not mammography, for all women of all ages along with any one of several high sensitivity biochemical tests for cancer. Please note that many experts, especially those whose incomes depend, directly or indirectly, on mammography and treatment for cancers –even false positive cancers — do not agree with my conclusions. Although many experts feel that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure, many feel that for women over 55 the risk is high enough to warrant the significant risk of mammograms.

In 1997, NIH appointed a consensus panel to evaluate the risk of mammography. They found no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives and may do more harm than good. Rather than coming to a conclusion, the panel advised women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.

I do not have mammograms. I also do not have the approval of the Pink Ribbon people to tell you this. (Tamoxifen is another, sad, deadly story. We’ll talk about it another time.) In the mean time, walk for a cure because exercise reduces the risk of breast cancer. Eat for a cure because sensible, natural diets reduce the risk of breast cancer. Laugh for a cure because stress and loneliness reduce immune competence. Pray for a cure because people with sincere religious convictions live longer and healthier than those without them.

Yours in radiation-free health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director

Original article posted w/ links:
http://blog.healthfreedomusa.org/
scroll down to the october 2nd blog -

Thermography - a natural alternative to mammograms. No radiation - earlier detection, more reliable. Check it out: http://ezinearticles.com/?Screening-For-Breast-Cancer-With-No-Compression-And-No-Radiation&id=66029


[Edited on Oct 15, 2005 by blastbeat666]

are you a scientologist? cuz the way you talk, you sound a whole lot like tom cruise raging against pharmaceuticals...

So... you're willing to distrust all of established medicine, and the word of every doctor you'll ever meet, because of a post in a child psychologist's blog?

"I'm not gullible, and here's this thing i read on the internet to prove it!!"

Is There a Conspiracy to Suppress Cancer Cures?
Steven Novella, M.D.
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Quacks typically charge that the medical profession, drug companies, the food industry, government agencies, and/or other "vested interests" are conspiring against "natural" cancer cures. No such conspiracy has ever been exposed. Yet many patients -- especially those whom standard medicine cannot cure -- embrace the notion that a small but dedicated band of rebels is defying the medical establishment by making natural cures available. And desperate patients may find it more comfortable to believe that cures are being suppressed than to feel that their situation is hopeless.

The conspiracy charge has two common scenarios. In one, opposition is based on fear of competition. In the other, a cure discovered within the establishment is suppressed. Neither of these situations makes sense.

The medical establishment is not a single entity. The health-care industry includes physicians, nurses, other health professionals, insurance companies, private consumer organizations, universities, government agencies (such as the FDA), hospitals, HMOs, other managed-care organizations, professional organizations (such as the AMA), pharmaceutical companies, and other private corporations. These groups may have competing interests; and, within each group, individual members may also have competing interests, and many have no financial stake in patient care. Some private physicians get paid for each patient they see, but others do not. Most who work for HMOs or other managed-care organizations are either salaried or capitated (receiving a fixed monthly sum per patient not per service). Those who pursue an academic career may be salaried and/or obtain money from research grants. For physicians on fixed incomes, more patients means more work, but not more money. Some physicians dedicate their career to public health and do not see patients at all. And if an expensive cancer treatment could be replaced by something much less costly, insurance companies would embrace it.

The medical professionals most likely to know about a new cancer cure would be those in academic medicine and research. New potential treatments are usually discovered by basic scientists who do laboratory research on the underlying mechanisms of disease. Their findings then suggest possible treatment strategies for those diseases. Drug companies or research institutes such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the National Cancer Institute (NCI), then fund clinical research to see whether the potential new treatment works -- first on animals and then on humans. The final arbiter of such new treatments is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which decides whether new treatments are safe and effective for their intended purposes. Most cancer treatment is administered by surgeons, radiologists, and cancer specialists who administer chemotherapy. The majority of doctors don't treat patients for cancer.

What about scientists who discover new treatments? If they can demonstrate effectiveness, publishing their data will bring them fame and fortune. The benefits could include research grants, academic promotion, enhanced research facilities, speaking invitations, honors, awards, and other career opportunities. Even scientists who are selfish and greedy would have much to gain by making their information public -- and so would the institutions in which they work.

What about drug companies? Won't they simply abandon a new drug that threatens their existing drugs? This scenario is also far-fetched. Drug companies are continuously looking for new drugs, because existing drugs have patents that will run out. Also, any company that can market a new drug that is effective against cancer will come out billions of dollars ahead, even if existing drugs become obsolete. Some conspiracy theorists claim that drug companies ignore "natural" substances that cannot be patented and therefore cannot be profitable. However, if a natural substance is found useful, drug companies can develop related chemicals that are more effective.

Even if a short-sighted drug company executive decided to suppress a new drug because it was too effective, the scientists involved might still go public with the information, for the general good if for no other reason. Among the dozens of people who have inside knowledge, someone is likely to have a conscience. The need for drug company support could be eliminated by obtaining a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Also, if the treatment really worked, other researchers would eventually be able to demonstrate to the world that the treatment did in fact cure cancer. This has never been done for any supposedly "suppressed" cancer cure.

Conspiracy theorists have claimed that if a simple and inexpensive replacement for today's treatments were found tomorrow, all U.S. medical schools would teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, because cancer treatment is such an important part of their income. This assertion has several flaws:

* A "simple and inexpensive" replacement for today's treatments is very unlikely. Cancer is not a single disease, but group of more than 100 different types. No single treatment has proven effective for every cancer, and no such "magic bullet" is likely to be discovered in the near future.
* Even if a magic bullet could be found, it would not be available soon and extensive testing would be required before standard treatments could be ethically abandoned in its favor. The necvessary research would take many years, giving hospitals and medical schools time to adapt. Physicians and researchers would not be put out of work by any such innovation. If the new treatment results in an oversupply of cancer specialists, fewer physicians-in-training would choose this specialty, and some oncologists would retrain for another type of practice. Some researchers might need to change the focus of their research, but their basic skills should make that simple.
* Widespread adoption of a quack cancer treatment would actually be the biggest threat its promoters could face, because competition would cause the price to drop.

Because standard medicine is based largely upon science and evidence, medical practice is constantly changing. New treatments, procedures, and avenues of research are created as our knowledge expands. Every time a new treatment is discovered, an older treatment becomes obsolete, or at least less important. Progress strengthens the health-care industry and is not a threat to it. Half a century ago, tuberculosis (TB) was widespread and incurable, entire hospitals were dedicated to the care of chronic cases. After antibiotics became available, the TB hospitals were emptied and TB specialists were rarely needed. The new TB treatments were not suppressed because of the impact they would have. Instead, the hospitals were converted for other uses and the specialists changed their practice.

Remember, too, that physicians, basic scientists, and even pharmaceutical company executives are people, with family and loved ones of their own. Many of the supposed conspirators are likely to be affected by cancer -- either themselves or within their family and friends. It is difficult to imagine that anyone could be greedy and short-sighted enough to condemn their loved ones -- and even themselves -- to a premature death from cancer, no matter what the possible gain.

____________________

Dr. Novella, a member of Quackwatch's advisory board, is Assistant Professor of Neurology at Yale University School of Medicine and president of the The New England Skeptical Society.

When you can show me a degree in medicine etc and sprout breasts maybe then I'll listen.

Untill then shut up asshole

Fuck you. This is so incredibly offensive. Have you ever had someone close to you die of breat cancer? I have.

X-Rays Cause Broken Legs!!

Glasses Cause Near-Sightedness!!

The Internets Cause Stupidity!!


Ok, the last one is true.

Well i'm giving money to them monthly so i guess i'm a sucker.

Great way to introduce yourself to a community man.

If all the shit you post is stuff like this, I don't think I need to stop doing anything to read it. What, do you work for the Weekly World News?

I'm guessing a lot less after this thread, you assclown.

He doesn't actually have a journal or a link to a blog, so I'm guessing he copied the entire post from somewhere else.

I think she pretty much summed it up right there.^

Exactly. READ MY BLOG!!!

Uh ... a link would be helpful.

Everything he has posted so far is conpiracy theorist bullshit THAT HE READ ON THE INTERNETS!!!! IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

You can't reply to the guy because he has no journal, and you can't read his blog (which I'm sure is quite "informative") because there is no link.

I guess we're all just supposed to take his word for it.

Uh ... no.

You guys can't find his blog because THE MAN has blinded you!! Links are a tool of the cypto-fascists! Wake up and smell the Chai, bros.

Fuck Administrative Assistants Day! The Revolution is coming!!

I can already tell you're going to contribute a lot to this community. Keep posting these enlightening threads. I especially like this one.

"October" is a myth created by Dow Chemicals and fostered by the fast food conglomerates.

And the pumpkin growers of America ... you can't forget them.

I read that on the internet. Read my blog!!!!

*wears her pink band and pink ribbon with pride*

The "great Pumpkin," created by Peanuts artist (and known Nazi sympathizer) Charles Shultz is, in reality, an homage to the Klan.

Hoe. Lee. Shit.

In a nefarious collaboration with Archer Daniels Midland.

From blastbeat666's dating profile, and I quote-

So, account sharing AND an underager? Great.

Cuuuute.

What a fucking asshole.

From the lovely Palo



I'm sorry, but that's about all the convincing *I* need.

-T