 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008Breast Cancer: Busting Common Myths
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html Believe nothing 'Doozie' Myrl Jeffcoat says/writes ... unless you love industry propaganda! Mammograms can be especially dangerous for women with breast implants ... often the implants rupture during this procedure. Further, when implants are in place ... implanted women are subjected to more radiation. CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION I know women who have discovered 5 tumors hidden behind their breast implants ... and even had had mammography that didn't detect them. Vaccination / Gardasil / Quackwatch Shill, Myrl Jeffcoat posts industry myths: CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION "The radiation from mammograms causes breast cancer. Oh, boy, that's a doozie. The amount of radiation received in a mammogram is very small and not a risk factor." ~~~~~~~~~~ The vast cancer industry makes billions from dangerous mammography ... and uses shills like Jeffcoat to spread their vastly profitable techniques as 'not a risk factor.' Sometimes it seems like Barrett is operating the Misinformation Myrl Doll himself ... http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/dangers.htm Dangers of Mammography Mammography poses a wide range of risks of which women worldwide still remain uninformed. Read Mammographys Mixed Blessings by Seaman and Epstein Read a press release on this topic Radiation Risks Radiation from routine mammography poses significant cumulative risks of initiating and promoting breast cancer (1 3). Contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial and similar to that from a chest X-ray or spending one week in Denver, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose) the routine practice of taking four films for each breast results in some 1,000-fold greater exposure, 1 rad, focused on each breast rather than the entire chest (2). Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of about 10 rads for each breast. As emphasized some three decades ago, the premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad of exposure increasing breast cancer risk by 1 percent, resulting in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk over ten years of premenopausal screening, usually from ages 40 to 50 (4); risks are even greater for "baseline" screening at younger ages, for which there is no evidence of any future relevance. Furthermore, breast cancer risks from mammography are up to fourfold higher for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation (5); by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States (6). Cancer Risks from Breast Compression As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle "cancerous breasts with care for fear of accidentally disseminating cells" and spreading cancer (7). Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers (8). Delays in Diagnostic Mammography As increasing numbers of premenopausal women are responding to the ACS's aggressively promoted screening, imaging centers are becoming flooded and overwhelmed. Resultingly, patients referred for diagnostic mammography are now experiencing potentially dangerous delays, up to several months, before they can be examined (9). REFERENCES 1. Gofman, J. W. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major Proven Preventable Cause of this Disease. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco, 1995. 2. Epstein, S. S., Steinman, D., and LeVert, S. The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Ed. 2. Macmillan, New York, 1998. 3. Bertell, R. Breast cancer and mammography. Mothering, Summer 1992, pp. 49 52. 4. National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, Advisory Committee. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Washington, D. C., 1972. 5. Swift, M. Ionizing radiation, breast cancer, and ataxia-telangiectasia. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 86( 21): 1571 1572, 1994. 6. Bridges, B. A., and Arlett, C. F. Risk of breast cancer in ataxia-telangiectasia. N. Engl. J. Med. 326( 20): 1357, 1992. 7. Quigley, D. T. Some neglected points in the pathology of breast cancer, and treatment of breast cancer. Radiology, May 1928, pp. 338 346. 8. Watmough, D. J., and Quan, K. M. X-ray mammography and breast compression. Lancet 340: 122, 1992. 9. Martinez, B. Mammography centers shut down as reimbursement feud rages on. Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2000, p. A-1. Excerpted from Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective and Practical Alternative, in International Journal of Health Services, Volume 31, Number 3, Pages 605 615, 2001 2001, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. See the entire article http://ilenarose.blogspot.com Note from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal: Please don't believe the Cancer Industry Disinformation Team ... now augmented by Quackwatch / Gardasil Shill, Myrl Jeffcoat. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1419 EXCERPT: According to the US Journal of Radiation Research, mammography involves a different type of radiation than that used in ordinary X-rays: A low energy form of ionising radiation. This can pass more readily through tissues but is up to five times more harmful than standard X-rays. Radiation risks Dr. John Gofman, a Nobel Prize-winner, believed that up to half of all cancer was caused by unnecessary radiation primarily related to diagnostic x-rays. He may have been onto something. A recent ten year trial involving screening use on pre-menopausal women aged 40-50, reported in the Lancet (Dec 7th 2006) and funded by the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK ended with the comment that, The findings had to be balanced against possible negative considerations such as an increased radiation exposure which might increase risk later in life. Frankly it is very good of these two important bodies to come clean and clarify once and for all that they believe there to be increased risks from mammogram radiation. For a number of years now, critics have claimed there were significant increased risks but repeated denial by Health authorities and certain leading charities created a murky area. Not so, any longer. According to the US Journal of Radiation Research, mammography involves a different type of radiation than that used in ordinary X-rays: A low energy form of ionising radiation. This can pass more readily through tissues but is up to five times more harmful than standard X-rays. The same Journal says that the alpha particles of mammograms have both large mass and charge, quite unlike ordinary X-rays, which have neither. And here-in lies the first problem. That statement is completely inaccurate. And if the US Journal of Radiation Research can get it wrong what hope is there for us mere mortals. Mammograms are merely X-rays but they do have a cumulative build-up effect. According to The American College of Clinical Thermography: A Literature Review and Commentary on the Current Status of Mammography, the level of exposure when both breasts are photographed - about 1 rad - is recorded as almost 1000 times higher than one chest x-ray, and lucent, pre-menopausal breast tissue has been shown to be especially sensitive to radiation. Each rad of radiation exposure has been shown to increase breast cancer risk by a little over 1 per cent. 10 years of annual screening will therefore result in a 10 to 20 per cent increased breast cancer risk, and these risks obviously increase the younger the subject starts. In England, women might expect to double these figures as now all women have two views of each breast taken at every screen - one from above (craniocaudal) and one into the armpit diagonally across the breast (mediolateral). The same US review notes that it has also now been proven that double strand breaks or even more extensive damage to the DNA can arise from the ionizations. Worse still, 1 to 2 per cent of women are silent carriers of the ataxia-telangiectasia gene and this is highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of mammogram radiation. They have a fourfold higher risk of breast cancer from mammography; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States. And finally, women who are carriers of a gene mutation (thats about 7 per cent of all women) may be well advised to be careful and go nowhere near a mammogram. In an article in the July 2006 issue of the Journal of Clinical researchers claimed the radiation dose from mammograms may actually cause breast cancer in women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer. In the study which looked at 1,600 European women with known mutations in BRAC1 or BRAC2 genes (mutations that put women at a much higher risk for developing breast cancer), researchers said women in the study who had at least one chest X-ray were 54 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than those who never had one! The study went on to say that these women might want to consider being screened with magnetic resonance imaging instead of X-rays.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.