X-Rays, a leading cause of cancerhttp://www.orgonelab.org X-Rays a leading cause of cancer, UC-Berkeley researcher says November 18, 1999 By Westyn Branch-Elliman Daily Californian, U. California-Berkeley (U-WIRE) BERKELEY, Calif. -- Medical radiation is a leading cause of both heart disease and cancer, a University of California-Berkeley researcher has found. Combined, coronary heart disease and cancer make up approximately 45 percent of all human deaths, said Jon Gofman, an emeritus professor of molecular and cell biology. Gofman found that more than 50 percent of all cancers and more than 50 percent of coronary heart disease cases are partially caused by medical X-rays. The study was conducted by collecting data on the number of doctors per every 100,000 patients. Gofman reasoned that because doctors order X-rays, the greater the number of doctors per patient in a given area, the greater the number of X-rays that will be ordered. "We did not have the radiation measurements but we know that radiation is a medical (treatment) called for by doctors," Gofman said. "People do not just go get X-rays. We took the simple proportionality and used it to calculate the radiation dose. We proved beyond the shadow of a doubt over 50 percent of cancer is caused by (medical) radiation." The data showed there is a high correlation between the proportion of doctors and the incidence of cancer, Gofman said. Scientists have known for a long time that radiation is a mutation that can cause cancer, but the strength of radiation effects continues to be under dispute. Gofman maintains that X-rays are a contributing factor in heart disease and several types of cancer. He said medical radiation causes gene mutations that accumulate each time a patient is exposed. Radiation causes cancer by mutating genetic data, causing tumor cells. Over time, these cells build up to form a cancerous mass. "Mutations come during the first clinical experience," Gofman said. "Then 10 years down the line, the radiation-induced mutations build up and cause cancer." ++++++++++ From: Chris gupta mbgupta@julian.uwo.ca Subject: Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Thought your interview on the above (Lancet 8 January 2000 article) on Friday Jan. 7 "As it Happens" program was good, However, for some reason mammography centric media and medicine have completely overlooked the much safer thermal imaging technology... Further no comment was made regarding dangers of X-Ray exposure. 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Depths of Deceit on 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. ... 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 boldly 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 50-70 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, "X-Ray 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). |