Connect with us

Underworld

How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic of Cancer

  • Article written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo LLC, posted here with permission.

    While a growing body of research now suggests that x-ray mammography is causing more harm than good in the millions of women who subject themselves to breast screenings, annually, without knowledge of their true health risks, the primary focus has been on the harms associated with over-diagnosis and over-treatment, and not the radiobiological dangers of the procedure itself.

    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 – butpossibly 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.[1]

    In other words, the radiation risk model used to determine whether the benefit of breast screenings in asymptomatic women outweighs their harm, underestimates the risk of mammography-induced breast and related cancers by between 4-600%.

    The authors continued

    Risk estimates for radiation-induced cancer – principally derived from the atomic bomb survivor study (ABSS) – are based on the effects of high energy gamma-rays and thus the implication is that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancer arising from mammography may be higher than that assumed based on standard risks estimates.

    This is not the only study to demonstrate mammography X-rays are more carcinogenic than atomic bomb spectrum radiation. There is also an extensive amount of data on the downside of x-ray mammography.

    Sadly, even if one uses the outdated radiation risk model (which underestimates the harm done),* the weight of the scientific evidence (as determined by the work of The Cochrane Collaboration) actually shows that breast screenings are in all likelihood not doing any net good in those who undergo them.

    In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review,** also known as the Gøtzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane Review, titled “Screening for breast cancer with mammography,” the authors revealed the tenuous statistical justifications for mass breast screenings:

    Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.[2]

    In this review, the basis for estimating unnecessary treatment was the 35% increased risk of surgery among women who underwent screenings. Many of the surgeries, in fact, were the result of women being diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a “cancer” that would not exists as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the fact that it is detectable through x-ray mammography. DCIS, in the vast majority of cases, has no palpable lesion or symptoms, and some experts believe it should be completely reclassified as a non-cancerous condition.

    A more recent study published in the British Medical Journal in 2011 titled, “Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modeling of Forrest report,” not only confirmed the Gøtzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane Review findings, but found the situation likely worse:

    This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.[3]

    So, let’s assume that these reviews are correct, and at the very least, the screenings are not doing any good, and at worst, causing more harm than good. The salient question, however, is how much more harm than good? If we consider that, according to data from Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2011), a mammogram uses 4 mSv of radiation vs. the .02 mSv of your average chest x-ray (which is 200 times more radiation), and then, we factor in the 4-600% higher genotoxicity/carcinogenicity associated with the specific “low-energy” wavelengths used in mammography, it is highly possible that beyond the epidemic of over-diagnosis and over-treatment, mammograms are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women.***

    With the advent of non-ionizing radiation based diagnostic technologies, such as thermography, it has become vitally important that patients educate themselves about the alternatives to x-ray mammography that already exist.  Until then, we must use our good sense – and research like this – to inform our decisions, and as far as the unintended adverse effects of radiation go, erring on the side of caution whenever possible.

    Additional Reading

    Is X-ray Mammography Findings Cancer or Benign Lesions?

    The Dark Side of Breast Cancer Awareness Month

    Does Chemo & Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant?


    *This discrepancy in radiation risk models/estimates follows from two fundamental problems: 1) the older risk model was based on higher-energy radiation emissions, such as are given off from atomic bomb blasts 2) it was a crude model, developed before the discovery of DNA and a full understanding of radiotoxicity/genotoxicity.

    ** Keep in mind that the Cochrane Database Review is at the top of the “food chain” of truth, in the highly touted “evidence-based model” of conventional medicine. Cochrane Database Reviews are produced by The Cochrane Collaboration, which is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high quality, evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of common health care interventions. The organization, comprised of over 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries, prides itself on being an “independent” source of information, and historically has not been afraid to point out the corrupting influence of industry, which increasingly co-opts  the biomedical research and publishing fields.

    ***The low-energy wavelengths cause double strand breaks within the DNA of susceptible cells, which the cell can not repair. Through time these mutations result in “neoplastic transformation”; radiation has the ability to induce a cancerous phenotype within formerly healthy cells that has cancer stem cell-like (CSC) properties.

    [1] Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme. Br J Radiol. 2006 Mar ;79(939):195-200. PMID: 16498030

    [2] Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(4):CD001877. Epub 2009 Oct 7. PMID: 19821284

    [3] Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report. BMJ. 2011 ;343:d7627. Epub 2011 Dec 8. PMID: 22155336

    Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

    If you want to learn more from Greenmedinfo, sign up for their newsletter here

Source link

Advertisement
Comments

Underworld

California Brain Tumor Association Issues Warning On Dangers of 5G

Alex Pietrowski, Staff Writer
Waking Times

At the center of the debate about 5G technology is the issue of whether or not 5G is safe. Already underway, though, the rapid rollout will deploy 20,000+ satellitesmillions of small towers, and use the same range of EMF waves as a military crowd-control system. Proponents of the technology don’t seem to acknowledge the growing body of research and growing number of voices warning us of the coming catastrophe of a world blanketed in 5G radiation.

Most often, however, those who are negatively impacted by wireless technologies and electromagnetic pollution, are individuals whose voices aren’t heard outside of courtrooms and city halls. In Canada, for example, journalist Rodney Palmer spoke to local government about a “wi-fi disaster,” which actually hurt a number of school children, resulting in the removal of the school’s wireless network.

“When the schools installed the wifi, we found out that at least four children had erratic tachycardia [fast or irregular heart rate] that confounded their doctors and they were wearing heart monitors to school. The older children…told us they had blackouts in certain areas of the school.” – Rodney Palmer

Interestingly, firefighters have for years opposed the placement of cell towers near fire stations, arguing that the effects of the towers disrupt living conditions for firemen and can cause neurological problems. A study was done for an incident occurred with a group of Los Angeles firefighters in 2016,  and is recounted in public testimony from veteran firefighter and Union president, David Gillotte.

Dr. Gunnar Heuser lead brain studies on firefighters following a cell tower installation on their fire station and found that their brains were all abnormal. His SPECT brain study in 2004 focused on firefighters who complained of neurological problems following a cell tower installation at their fire station beforehand. The symptoms they experienced were: headaches, memory problems, sleeping problems, depression, and anxiety.  Dr. Heuser published a study recently on fMRI showing abnormalities in EHS similar to brain injury. Original study published in July 2017, without the controls, full textCorrigendum to the study, which includes fMRI scans of the controls (non- EHS) ~Arun Walia

Gillotte speaks on the need to protect firefighters and stations from cell towers.

Of interest in this conversation should also be the insight and opinions of closest to the victims of EMF pollution. In 2016, the California Brain Tumor Association (CBTA) condemned the passage of a bill that allowed for proliferation of small cell towers in California communities by requiring cities to lease land to telecom companies for 5G equipment and infrastructure.

Acknowledging the known concerns of firefighters, CBTA executive director Ellie Marks had remarks for then governor Jerry Brown:

CBTA said, “The burning question Gov. Brown should be asking himself as he makes a decision that could change California forever is this: If we exempt fire stations to protect firefighters, why are we allowing cell towers throughout neighborhoods, in front of preschools, schools, hidden in church steeples, on lampposts, utility poles and on most public buildings if these are too dangerous for fire stations?” [Source]

Marks and the CBTA cited several key studies as the scientific and ethical foundation for opposing the bill and for opposing 5G in general.

CBTA, headed by executive director Ellen [sic] Marks, issued a press release that cited several studies pointing to the dangers of pulsed, electro-magnetic radiation.

DNA damage in those living close to a cell tower was documented in a new study by Electromagnetic Biol Med. 2017 Aug 4:1-11: “Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.”

Source: Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC.:   Department of Zoology, Cancer and Radiation Biology Laboratory , Mizoram University, India. 

“All of the recorded radiofrequency radiation (RFR) power density values in this study were well below the Federal Communication Commission’s maximum permissible exposure limits in the U.S. for the general population,” said Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., University of Calif. Berkeley School of Public Health.

The study, said CBTA, follows on the heels of the major $25 million study recently released by the U.S. National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health that found increased incidences of brain cancer, malignant tumors of the heart and DNA damage in laboratory animals from exposure levels the FCC considers “safe.”

The American Cancer Society’s statement on the significance of this new study was cited: “The NTP report linking radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to two types of cancer marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk. The findings are unexpected; we wouldn’t reasonably expect non-ionizing radiation to cause these tumors.” 

According to their website, the CBTA was formed by Ellie Marks as an advocacy group after her husband was diagnosed with brain cancer which was believed to be the result of cell phone usage. More on the CBTA

Founded in 2008, the California Brain Tumor Association is a leading non-profit organization dedicated to safeguarding public health. We believe that it is inexcusable to allow technological advances invented to enrich our lives rob us of our lives instead.

We have been researching the question of how the wireless radiation from cell phones, towers and wifi routers (all things wireless) has harmful effects on health. The wireless industry says the “jury is out” and that the studies to date are inconclusive or mixed, with about half saying yes and half saying no. We do not agree.

Independent expert groups have looked at the same studies and determined that the industry-funded studies tend to find no harm and the independent studies tend to find there is harm.

The science is far more settled than the industry claims.

Our reading of the situation is that science has established enough proof of harm that regulations should be updated now and appropriate warnings issued. The “jury” actually is back and it has given its guilty verdict.

In brief, we are convinced that the science, on a global basis, is far more definitive than the claims by industry and government agencies imply. I recognize that this position places us far out on a limb relative to most people, but our conviction level is very high.

CABTA focuses on prevention as the cure and exposes environmental hazards.

Currently, we continue to focus on prevention of primary brain tumors due to cell phone use and our government’s deployment of 4G and 5G technology with no apparent concern for peer reviewed published science documenting the health risks from wireless technology.

Here is director Ellie Marks speaking in opposition to SB 649:

In the following video, members of the wireless industry admit that there are no studies showing 5G is safe:

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.

This article (California Brain Tumor Association Issues Warning On Dangers of 5Goriginally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski and WakingTimes.com

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

The Deeper Reason for Drug Ads On Television

Jon Rappoport, Guest
Waking Times

Television viewers are inundated with drug ads from Big Pharma. It’s a flood.

Have you ever heard of these drugs? OtezlaXeljanzNamzaricKeytrudaBreoCosentyz? Not likely. If you have, do you know what conditions they treat? Highly unlikely. But there they are, splashed in commercials.

Why? Who is going to remember to ask their doctor whether these and other obscure meds are right for them?

What’s going on here?

The answer is: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT DRUGS ARE BEING ADVERTISED.

If Pharma can pay enough TOTAL money for ads, for ALL drugs, and dominate the allotted TV time for commercials, it can control the news—and that is exactly what it wants to do.

Pharmaceutical scandals are everywhere. Reporting on them, wall to wall, isn’t good for the drug business. However, as an industry ponying up billions of dollars for TV ads, Pharma can limit exposure and negative publicity. It can (and does) say to television networks: If you give us a hard time on the news, we’ll take our ad money and go somewhere else. Boom. End of problem.

Face it, the billions of dollars Pharma is paying for TV ads are a drop in the bucket, compared with its profits gained from selling the drugs. The ads are a good investment. As a bribe.

Control the news.

There is another reason for the insane flood of TV drug ads:

By their sheer number, they convince viewers that medical drugs (no matter what they are) are absolutely necessary.

Hour by hour, viewers numbly watch drug commercial after commercial. The overall message is: To keep illness from your door, to cure illness, to alleviate illness, you must take these medicines. THIS IS LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. You’re all sick, and you need help, and this is the ONLY kind of help there is.

The drug companies could invent names of fake drugs that don’t even exist, advertise them in a cascade on television, with the same intent. DRUGS ARE AS VITAL TO LIFE AS WATER OR AIR.

But what about all those dire warnings of side effects from the drugs? By law, the companies must include them in their commercials. Well, the companies have calculated that, on balance, the stark, front-line, unending message of DRUGS, DRUGS, AND MORE DRUGS will outweigh the warnings in viewers’ minds.

If the television audience is nailed with the idea that they can’t escape; that their health always hangs in the balance; that dire illnesses are always waiting in the shadows to strike; that the slightest ache or pain could be a precursor to a crippling or fatal disease; and drugs are the only solution and protection—they’re going to overlook the warnings about side effects.

ALL IN ALL, DRUG ADS ARE NEWS.

That’s the approach. Pharma is blasting out 24/7 news asserting modern medicine’s central and commanding role in the life of every human.

It’s a gigantic and stupendous piece of mind control, but when did that ever stop tyrants from inventing reality for the masses?

Implicit in “ask your doctor if drug X is right for you,” is the message: “go to your doctor.” That’s the key. If the ads can put a viewer into the system, he will be diagnosed with something, and he’ll be given a drug for it.

So the drug ads are also promotions for doctors, who are the arbiters and the decision makers. Some kind of medical need (drugs) always exists—and the doctor will tell you what it is. And all patients should OBEY. Even if, in the process, they go broke.

Take the case of Opdivo, a drug that treats squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Cost? $12,500 a month. Patients on Medicare will pay $2500 a month out of their own pockets. And the result?

Wall St, Journal: “In the clinical study on which the Opdivo ad bases its claims, the drug extended median patient survival to 9.2 months from the start of treatment…”

The cancer patient pays $22,500 for nine months of survival, during which the suffering continues, and then he dies.

The ad isn’t mentioning THAT.

The ad relies on the doctor to convince the patient to go along with this lunatic program.

About the Author

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrixclick here.)

This article (The Deeper Reason for Drug Ads On Television) was originally created and published by Jon Rappaport’s Blog and is re-posted here with permission.

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

Pope Francis Admits Nuns Were Used as “Sex Slaves” by Priests and Bishops

Pope Francis has acknowledged that the Roman Catholic Church has a persistent problem in which nuns are sexually abused by priests and bishops who have resorted to using them as “sex slaves.”

The admission by the pontiff marks the first public acknowledgement of the problem, which piles further scandal onto Catholic clergy who are already coping with a crisis of global proportions over the sexual abuse of children.

In recent years, Catholic nuns have raised their voices over sexual assaults by clerics in Africa, Latin America, India, and Italy.

Speaking to an Associated Press reporter on Tuesday during a flight home from Abu Dhabi, the pope acknowledged that more must be done to address the crisis:

“It’s true … There have been priests and even bishops who have done this. I think it is still going on because something does not stop just because you have become aware of it.”

The pope also revealed that an order of nuns was dissolved by the previous pontiff, Pope Benedict, after abuses “to the point of sexual slavery” were committed by high-ranking clergy. Pope Francis said:

“It’s a path that we’ve been on. Pope Benedict had the courage to dissolve a female congregation which was at a certain level, because this slavery of women had entered it — slavery, even to the point of sexual slavery — on the part of clerics or the founder.”

A Vatican press representative later confirmed to CBS News that the order of nuns dissolved in 2005 was the Community of St. Jean in France.

The comments come on the heels of an article released by a Vatican women’s magazine that delved into the abuse of nuns within the Catholic Church.

In an article for Women Church World, editor-in-chief Lucetta Scaraffia noted cases where nuns were forced to carry out abortions of priests’ children or to bear children that the priests refused to recognize, noting that offenders enjoyed impunity because of the culture of silence surrounding their crimes.

Scaraffia wrote:

“If eyes continue to be closed to this scandal – rendered even more serious by the fact that the abuse of women entails procreation and is thus at the root of the scandal of imposed abortions and of the children not recognized by priests – the condition of oppression of women in the Church will never change.”

The magazine also included a message from the pope addressing the scandal, where he tore into the abuse of power by high-ranking clergy and priests who have shielded their crimes.

On Wednesday, church officials sought to walk back the “sexual slavery” line. Vatican spokesman Alessandro Gisotti told reporters that the ope “spoke of ‘sexual slavery’ to mean ‘manipulation’ or a type of abuse of power that is reflected in a sexual abuse.”

Last year, the International Union of Superiors General, a body representing over half a million nuns, blasted the “culture of silence and secrecy” over such abuses in the church, and urged members to report instances of abuse to their congregations as well as church and state authorities, noting that they “stand by those courageous women and men who have reported abuse.”

This article originally appeared on TMU

Continue Reading

Trending