The Depths of Deceit Mammography

In keeping with the theme of my site of self empowerment, I have compiled the following data to keep the vultures at bay. Important data on the above that I think everyone must read to protect themselves. More to come in due course.

Chris Gupta

NB: Suffice it to say that one does not go about exposing the most susceptible segment of the population with more carcinogens when other alternatives are available. CG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shehagh,

Thought your interviews on the above CBC May 2nd 2001 "This Morning" program was a bit stale. For some reason mammography centric media and medicine have completely overlooked the much safer thermal and infrared imaging technologies... Further no comment was made regarding dangers of X-Ray exposure.

While Dr. Baines started to provide some balance on the subject, but in the end, she also capitulated to the industry pitch on Mammography very sad indeed.

Think you might find the attached historical book excerpt on mammography educational. You will find little that has changed, commercial concerns continue to override health issues. The book reference is cited at the end of the article.

Chris Gupta
London Ont.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX P: The Depths of Deceit Mammography

The great deceit began in the early 1970s. It was concocted by insiders at the American Cancer Society (ACS) and their "friends" at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The number of women who were put "at risk" or who died as a result of this nefarious scheme is not known but estimated to be huge. The Director of the NCI at the time of this massive abuse of the public trust later left government service and took a high paying position at ACS (sort of a payoff).

The American Cancer Society's self serving program (financial scheme) continues to the present day (1999) and probably into the 21st century until enough women realize the stakes and force an end to the lie and the terrible dangers.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) particularly wanted to push mammography because it could be tied in with the Society's own financial objectives (keep in mind the ACS slogan "a check and a checkup"). And the radiologists, of course, loved the ACS program. There were few, if any, powerful voices individual or institutional which cried out, "No!" or "God No! Don't do this. NO. NO. NO."

The collusive attack on healthy American women happened because "the fix was in." Powerful politicians and the media were silent. Silent as sleeping sentinels while a determined, aggressive, self serving gang of sophisticated operatives manipulated the nation's entire cancer program to suit its own interests. And to hell with the millions of American women who would pay the price for the next thirty years or more, well into the 21st century.

In 1978, Irwin J. D. Bross., Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research commented about the cancer screening program:

"The women should have been given the information about the hazards of radiation at the same time they were given the sales talk for mammography... Doctors were gung ho to use it on a large scale. They went right ahead and X rayed not just a few women but a quarter of a million women... A jump to the exposure of a quarter of a million persons to something which could do more harm than good was criminal and it was supported by money from the federal government and the American Cancer Society." (P1)

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) was warned in 1974 by professor Malcolm C. Pike at the University of Southern California School of Medicine that a number of specialists had concluded that "giving a women under age 50 a mammogram on a routine basis is close to unethical." (P2)

Repeat... The experts in the government were told not to do this to healthy women in the YEAR 1974! The warning was ignored because Mary Lasker (whose husband was the dark advertising devil behind the Lucky Strike cigarette advertising campaigns) and her advertising / promotional / corporate power types at the American Cancer Society (ACS) wanted mammography. Everyone else could go to hell. What Mary and her powerful political allies wanted in the cancer world, they got. Everyone else, including the public, was ignored.

By the early 1980s, NCI and ACS were at it again. They jointly put forth new guidelines promoting (again!) ... annual breast X Rays for women under age 50. They just simply refused to give up their lucrative racket. (One official candidly admitted the publicity brought in more research money for both institutions.) They refused to do what was not in their personal, empire building interest no matter the cost in human lives.

“…doctors and their patients assumed that there was good evidence supporting those recommendations. But at the time, only one study showed positive benefit and the results were not significant." (P3)

In 1985, the respected British medical journal The Lancet, one of the five leading medical journals in the world, published an article which ripped the NCI-ACS propaganda to shreds. It not only (again!) exposed the original onslaught by the high level ACS NCI conspirators in the early middle 1970s against a quarter million unsuspecting American women, but reviled the continuing 1980s ACS NCI propaganda.

"Over 280,000 women were recruited without being told that no benefit of mammography had been shown in a controlled trial for women below 50, and without being warned about the potential risk of induction of breast cancer by the test which was supposed to detect it ...
...in women below 50... mammography gives no benefit..." (P4)

But nothing happened. Mammography was known to cause cancer but the media and the "health officials" in the government stayed silent! The mammography policy pushed by the American Cancer Society to fill its bank account remained the U.S. government policy for ten more years until a massive Canadian study showed conclusively what was known 20 YEARS before but what was not in the interests of ACS and NCI to admit: X raying the breasts of women younger than age 50 provided no benefit and probably endangered their lives.

In February 1992 Samuel Epstein, professor at the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago, a tireless opponent of the "cancer establishment," along with 64 other distinguished cancer authorities opposing the status quo thinking, warned the public about the ACS NCI shenanigans. The ACS and NCI (like long married felons caught in a crime together) were outraged, terming Dr. Epstein's reference to the breast studies as "unethical and invalid."

The next month, the Washington Post broke the story into the mainstream media (finally!). It published an article by Dr. Epstein which exposed what the ACS and their insider "friends" at NCI had done to countless women twenty years earlier and continued for twenty years until 1992. Dr. Epstein wrote:

“…The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with Xray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogrammed annually. Women were given no warning whatever; how many subsequently developed breast cancer remains uninvestigated.

“…Additionally, the establishment ignores safe and effective alternatives to mammography, particularly trans illumination with infrared scanning.

“…For most cancers, survival has not changed for decades. Contrary claims are based on rubber numbers." (P5)

The crimes described were crimes. They were not errors of judgment. They were not differences of scientific opinion. They were conscious, chosen, politically expedient acts by a small group of people for the sake of their own power, prestige and financial gain, resulting in suffering and death for millions of women. They fit the classification of "crimes against humanity."

In December of 1992, the New York Times published facts about the Mammography scam. The story included the following:

"Dr. I. Craig Henderson, director of the clinical cancer center at the University of California in San Francisco, said, 'We have to tell women the truth' ...

"Dr. Robert McLelland, a radiologist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, said... 'In our zeal to promote mammography, we as radiologists and I'm one of them haven't looked at the evidence.' " (P6)

In July 1995, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet blasted (again) the whole ACS NCI mammography scam into global awareness:

"The benefit is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous..." (P7)

But the spreading knowledge of what was going on made no difference to the bureaucrats "protecting the public" at the NCI and the FDA who had their empires to protect. And of course the American Cancer Society (ACS) furiously fought every attempt by those with any honor in the federal agencies who sought to restrict the number of mammography examinations for individual women or to extend the age at which a woman had her first one. Mammography was the American Cancer Society's ".sacred cow" (cash cow) and they wanted legions of women to begin having annual exams as early as the ACS could brainwash them into doing ("a check and a checkup").

By 1999, even celebrity poet Maya Angelou was shamefully and ignorantly promoting Mammography in public service ads on television, parroting the American Cancer Society's propaganda spiel. Nothing had changed. Those "protecting the public" at NCI and FDA were doing the exact opposite. They were hiding, protecting their little empires, while American women were being needlessly exposed to dangerous, cancer causing X rays.

In September 1999, the full depth of the decades long deceit was explicitly described in an article in the journal Alternative Medicine. It would reach relatively few mainstream American women who were being brainwashed by the "interests" through the mainstream media and pliable state and federal legislators representatives of the people") but it did provide a torch glow in a dark night.

Here's the awful truth it stated baldly like a screaming American eagle to any American woman fortunate enough to read the hard facts:

“…Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth,' says Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute...

“…the annual mammographic screening of 10,000 women aged 5070 will extend the lives of, at best, 26 of them; and annual screening of 10,000 women in their 40s will extend the lives of only 12 women per year." (P8)

So there's the lie and the depth of the Mammography Deceit spelled out: mammography will extend at best 2 women's lives for 10,000 women put at risk in order to benefit radiologists, the American Cancer Society, assorted bureaucrats, and other "interested" parties who profit off the vast, well organized mammography deceit when safe alternatives exist but are ignored!

And that brings us back to the essential issues and fundamental principles which once guided the American nation into greatness. Which of course forces us to look again at the cancer empire's tyranny and threat to everything once held sacred in America.

The fine political thinker Hannah Arendt who studied the Nazi and Soviet tyrannies, and wrote brilliant works on the evil at the core of fascism and communism, scolds those of us who today surrender to the bureaucrats, conscious, unaccountable deceits and tyrannies. Hannah Arendt's words:

“… Bureaucracy... the rule by Nobody. Indeed, if we identify tyranny as the government that is not held to give account of itself, rule by Nobody is clearly the most tyrannical of all, since there is no one left who could even be asked to answer for what is being done.

“… Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act. It enables him to get together with his peers, to act in concert, and to reach for goals and enterprises which would never enter his mind, let alone the desires of his heart, had he not been given this gift to embark upon something new."

It is time for women to try something new, such as the Thermal Image Processor (TIP) and to toss dangerous mammography, toss the American Cancer Society, and toss the ACS's lackeys at NCI into the dustbin of history. (P10)

P1. H.L.Newbold, Vitamin C Against Cancer, 1979.
P2. Daniel Greenberg, "XRay Mammography Background to a Decision," New
England Journal of Medicine, September 23, 1976.
P3. "Mammograms Don't Help Younger Women," Spectrum News Magazine, March/April 1993, p. 22. (Spectrum, 61 Dutile Road, Belmont, N.H. 032202525)
P4. Petr Skrabanek, "False Premises and False Promises of Breast Cancer Screening," The Lancet, August 10, 1985.
P5. Samuel S. Epstein, "The Cancer Establishment," Washington Post, March 10, 1992.
P6. Gina Kolata, "New Data Revive the Debate Over Mammography Before 50,
" New York Times, December 16, 1992 (Health Section).
P7. C.J. Wright and C.B. Mueller, "Screening Mammography and Public Health Policy," The Lancet, July
1995.
P8. "How Mammography Causes Cancer," Alternative Medicine, Sep. 1999, p. 32 (21 Main Street, Upper
Level, Tiburon, CA 94920).
P9. Hannah Arendt, "Reflections on Violence," The New York Review of Books,
Feb 27, 1969.
P10. "Thermal Image Processing: Breast Cancer Detection Years Earlier," Alternative Medicine,
September 1999, pp. 2935 (21 Main Street, Upper Level, Tiburon, CA 94920).

From:

Cancer Solutions: Rife, Energy Medicine, and Medical Politics:

Cost for the book is 10 US dollars with free shipping in the Continental United States.

Residents of the state of California please add 8% sales tax (80c)

For out of US orders, there is sadly a higher price for this manuscript book because (A) banks insist on imposing exorbitant fees (which are totally unreasonable) for each check or money order in US funds which they "process" and (B) extra out of country mailing costs (all shipments will be via air mail).

Therefore, residents of Canada add 8 US dollars for bank processing and 2 US dollars for postage ($20 total).

Residents of England and Europe add 8 US dollars for bank processing and 5 US dollars for postage ($23 total).

Residents of Australia, New Zealand and Asia add 8 US dollars for bank processing and 8 US dollars postage ($26 total).

Make checks or money orders to Barry Lynes. Sorry, no credit cards. Please send all funds payable in US dollars to:

Barry Lynes

P.O. Box 12183
Palm Desert, CA
92255

Additional comments on anther CBC program:

Thought your program on Mammography broadcasted on CBC As It Happens (Friday 2002/02/22) sounded more like an advertisement than an interview.

The ad nauseam interviews with Dr. Yaffe has made it abundantly clear that this researcher, like many others, has capitulated to the Mammography industry and has become their marketing mouth piece... and will swear up and down that research money has nothing to do with his views.

For an historic review of this subject see "The Depths of Deceit Mammography" above.

Given that there are plenty of much safer alternatives such as thermal, ultrasound and extremely accurate and safe Anti-Malignin Antibody in Serum (AMAS) test are now available. It is very hard to understand why the media, the government, the public at large and mainstream medicine mindlessly continue to seek information form such self serving specialists. Who after all earn a living from their expertise and have little or no interest in finding out alternatives, unless they threaten their livelihood, and then of course a fair assessment is rare and these are mostly defamed, overlooked or suppressed. For example most doctors are totally oblivious of the AMAS test mentioned above.

Dr. Yaffe's new spin now is that - the newer methods are much better than those used for all the previous negative studies. Implying that in recent years mammography has become safe. Pray tell how this assessment could have been made in just 2 or 3 years on something that takes at 10 to 20+ years to determine. Regardless of this smoke and mirrors rubbish, there is no getting away from the fact that cumulative exposure to hard X-Rays, regardless of reduction in the newer machines, increases the probability to cause cancer. I also recall reading, the source escapes me at the moment, that frequently x-ray calibration is neglected and the patient can be subjected to significantly higher radiation in due course... He should know that un-repaired damage to genes from x-rays accumulates. Therefore, the risk from multiple mammograms is the sum of the risk from each individual exam. Mammograms which turn out to be "false positives" often result in additional x-ray procedures and risk.See references at end my note.

Mammogram interpretation is often wrong. In 1996, the journal Archives of Internal Medicine published results of a test of 108 radiologists throughout the United States. The test used a set of 79 mammograms where the diagnosis had been verified by subsequent biopsies, surgeries or other follow-up. The radiologists missed cancer in 21% of the films, thought 10% of the women with no breast disease had cancer and thought 42% of benign lesions were cancerous.

The mechanical pressure used in this procedure can spread cells that are already malignant (as can biopsies). In 1995 the British medical journal The Lancet reported that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography. This increase is for all women: Since the inception of widespread mammographic screening, the increase for women under the age of 40 has gone up over 3000%.

Now they want to start mammography earlier (40 from 50 years onwards) as shown above the new recommendations aren't based on any scientific reasoning - in fact, they fly in the face of mounting evidence that mammograms don't save lives at ANY age. The rest of the world is questioning mammography - particularly when so many safer alternatives exist? why is U.S. and Canada still championing the cause? As usual commercial concerns continue to override health issues.

Chris Gupta
London Ont.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some references for those contemplating this procedure should study the following:

Personal correspondence re hard X-rays from Dr. James DeMeo.

Dear Chris,

As a former anti-nuclear activist and scientific consultant on the issue of low-level radiation, I can inform you that this kind of argument -- that "natural" low-level radiation is something similar to human-generated x-rays or nuclear waste, is pure bunk, the objections of the ignorant, or of knowing liars. In addition to what you say above, about whole-body exposure, consider this: X-rays are concentrated energy in one narrow spike of the EM spectrum. Natural background even from airplane flights, are basically a wide variety of EM exposures ("particle-waves") which occur in a very wide spectral distribution, to include all kinds of stuff from Earth beta radiation, cosmic rays to the occasional gamma-ray burst. When the comparison is made from clinical x-ray exposure to natural background, it is done purely on the basis of the "energy under the curve", which is a deceptive procedure. The most accurate way to compare, is to contrast the peak quantity of exposure for the given frequency of interest -- and so, x-ray exposures from high-altitude airplane flights are negligible, practically zero. Maybe a small bit of "soft x-ray" is found at the top of the atmosphere, well above jet altitudes, and maybe a celestial object will occasionally emit an "x-ray burst", but these require exceedingly sensitive equipment to even detect them, and often have to be put into orbit, on satellites, before they can be detected, and they certainly would not penetrate into the body of an aircraft. HARD X-RAY AS USED FOR DIAGNOSTICS AND THERAPY IS ANOTHER BEAST ALTOGETHER, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE GET VIRTUALLY NOTHING IN THOSE FREQUENCIES FROM NATURE. Certainly nothing approximating the peak intensities during a medical x-ray. The same is true for atomic waste, where specific radionuclides emit at narrow bands, as opposed to broad-banded natural background. If a cell is sensitive to a particular frequency, the high spikes and peaks of the artificial radiation will create havoc. This is not to say that airplane travel has no radiological hazard whatsoever -- but this is mainly a problem for the pilots and stewardesses, who travel daily. And even here, the epidemiological evidence is not conclusive. There are debates about whether the high EM emissions from the airplane's own electronics are of greater problem for health than the natural background. The most clear biological complication for these people is in the longitudinal travel, which disrupts natural biological rhythms. According to my recollections, I don't believe there is any evidence of pilots and stewardesses having higher rates of cancer than the background populations, but this is the case with radiologists.

Regards,

James DeMeo, Ph.D.

DR. JOHN GOFMAN'S LATEST WORK IMPLICATES X-RAYS IN CANCER AND HEART DISEASE

http://www.nirs.org/radiationassault/drjohn.html

PREVENTING BREAST CANCER - SECOND EDITION: 1996

This book uncovers the major cause of the recent breast-cancer incidence in the USA. The author shows that past exposure to ionizing radiation --- primarily medical x-rays --- is responsible for about 75 percent of the breast-cancer problem in the United States.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT MAMMOGRAMS THAT EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW

http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ea2002/ea_020109.shtml

My response to Dr. Baines

Thanks so much for your support on this issue. Regarding your last statement: "However I do not accept that 70% of cancers are induced by medical imaging." I must say, it has been difficult to pin down the x-ray issue. Suffice it to say that one does not go about exposing the most susceptible segment of the population with more carcinogens when other alternatives are available. Think reading Dr. Gofman's book, particularly chapter 41, should be appropriate to see exactly in what context the above statement was made.

Every step of the estimate's derivation is shown at the following location and should be required reading by any serious researcher on this issue.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/chp41F.html#Part1

Chris Gupta

At 01:21 PM 01/04/2002 -0500, Cornelia Baines wrote:
Your indignation about Martin Yaffe and the bias being displayed by not only AIH but also by Shelagh Rogers in her morning program is very appropriate. But the CBC like many others, wants to hear the news it wants to hear. I am confident that in the long run, the truth will emerge about the flawed evidence and reprehensible and unprincipled behavior of mammography industry spokesmen.

However I do not accept that 70% of cancers are induced by medical imaging.

Regards,

Cornelia baines

Cornelia J Baines MD, FACE
Professor Emerita,
12 Queen's Park Cres. W., Room 401C,
Department of Public Health Sciences,
University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A8
Phone: 416-946-8083
Fax: 416-978-8299

[Mammography]