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    Sadly, even if one uses the outdated radiation risk model (which underestimates the harm done),* the weight of the scientific evidence (as determined by the work of The Cochrane Collaboration)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

The Most Senior Vatican Official Ever Convicted of Child Sexual Abuse Might Be Set Free Tomorrow

  • The Facts:Tomorrow, it will be decided whether or not Cardinal George Pell’s guilty verdict will be appealed. If his appeal is successful, he will be let go and the charges of sexual abuse against children will be dropped.
  • Reflect On:Although awareness is being created, the most powerful people in the world and the authorities we turn to in order to stop these activities may also be implicated.

The sexual abuse of children connected to high ranking Vatican officials is nothing new. Multiple popes have been implicated or involved, including Pope Francis. For example, Carlo Maria Vigano, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States and Secretary-General of the Governorate of Vatican City was the last one to do that. You can read more about that here. Decades of sexual abuse were reported in a choir that was led by the retired pope Benedict’s brother. It’s interesting that all of these revelations and accusations of violence, child abuse and pedophilia coincided with the time of that pope’s resignation. You can read more about that specific case here. According to Malachi Martin, an Irish Catholic priest, writer on the Catholic Church, and Professor of Palaeography at the Vatican’s Pontifical Biblical Institute, “the incidence of Satanic pedophilia – rites and practices – was already documented among certain bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen Archangel’s rites.” The list of examples is long, and the topic could fill books that deal with pedophilia, torture, murder and ritualistic abuse.

The latest example to make public headlines is Cardinal George Pell. Pell was just convicted on five counts of child sexual abuse. He has now become the most senior official ever to be found guilty, serving as an advisor to Pope Benedict as well as Pope Francis. He’s one of the Vatican’s most powerful officials.

Who knows what Pell is really involved in, how deep his involvement goes, and what other crimes he is guilty of committing?

As the Guardian pointed out:

The jurors heard Pell sexually assaulted the two boys after Sunday solemn mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne in the priest’s sacristy. Pell orally raped one of the boys during this incident and indecently assaulted both of them. Pell offended a second time against one of the boys one month later, when he grabbed the boy’s genitals in a church corridor, once more after Sunday solemn mass. He was convicted on four counts of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 and one count of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16.

Pell appealed the court’s decision, and if he wins he could be set free. The decision is set to be announced tomorrow. The Senior Vatican official has been in custody in Melbourne since his sentencing to 6 years in prison earlier this year in March.

Pell’s appeal was heard in June before a full bench of the supreme court including the chief justice, Anne Ferguson, the president of the court of appeal, Chris Maxwell, and Mark Weinberg. Only two of the three judges needs to agree as to whether Pell’s conviction should be overturned. (source)

The recent NXIVM case along with the Jeffrey Epstein saga has certainly brought more attention to this type of thing and how big of a problem it is within elite circles, particularly the sexual ritualistic abuse and trafficking of young women and children.

But will things change? Does it make a difference if Cardinal George Pell will be set free, or if not set free become another ‘fall guy’? Will this help stop the problem or does something grander need to happen? Does our focus need to shift away from one person onto an entire entity and organization, like the leaders Catholic Church/Vatican?

Based on my research, many high level people are involved in this type of activity, including many whom authority figures go to in order to solve these problems. These people have amassed tremendous amounts of power and a few convictions here and there. Awareness may not be able to solve the problem, but that’s not to say it’s not a giant leap forward to share this information…

When it comes to Vatican officials, it’s quite clear that many people have been aware of this type of thing for a very long time. This is evident by many examples throughout the years, and this clip of Pell debating scientist Richard Dawkins is a great example of what I am talking about. You can see the crowds reaction when ‘little boys’ are mentioned.

The Takeaway

The positive thing about all of the awareness and transparency that’s hitting the mainstream with regards to this type of activity is that it’s simply becoming more known. We’re talking about people that the world has been made to praise, idolize, and look up to. We are talking about people that have tremendous amounts of power and influence over political policies and major corporations that are continuing to destroy our planet and perpetuate war.

This is immoral behaviour, and there are many parts of our world that are a reflection of that. But things are changing, and awareness is the first step to that. We are in the process of change and uncovering the truth, and not turning a blind eye is key to that.

At the end of the day, blame and punishment are also not the answers. We must dive deep and ask ourselves why these people do such things. Did it happen to them in their upbringing? Is putting someone in a cage the solution, and can that help someone heal?

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

New Study Reveals How ADHD Drugs ‘Alter The Structure of Children’s Brains’

Elias Marat, The Mind Unleashed
Waking Times

As attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) continues to remain an extremely common diagnosis for children in the United States, researchers are warning doctors to hold off on issuing popular ADHD drugs such as Ritalin and Concerta unless absolutely necessary.

The warnings come as scans of children who take such drugs as methylphenidate (MPH), commonly known as Ritalin, show that they have a major effect on the development of white matter in the brains of children, impairing their ability to learn and coordinate communication between regions of the brain.

These drastic effects are completely absent when adults take methylphenidate, showing no such structural changes to the brain, according to a new studypublished in the scientific journal Radiology.

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

Ex Youtube Staff Exposes Corporate And Star Favoritism For Rule Breaking

Censorship of information is critically important for the Deep State to maintain their false reality paradigm, which is the foundation of the mind control system used to enslave the individual and society at large. The preceding information reveals one such method the powers that be are using to censor information. Properly understood, one can begin the process of liberating their mind from false conceptions of reality, particularly those incomplete bits of knowledge that if contemplated fully, would activate the truth-seeking urge and result in the development of mental autonomy—critical thinking and discernment skills.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending