Mammograms can Cause Cancer
Ilena Rose
http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
For years, it seemed obvious to me that attacking breasts with cancer
causing radiation was a bad idea.
Yet the cancer industry and their PR teams have promoted it with
abandon.
http://www.breastimplantawareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
http://www.breastimplantawareness.org/snake-oil.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091201/hl_hsn/mammogramsmayboostcancerriskinhighriskwomen
TUESDAY, Dec. 1 (HealthDay News) -- Mammograms may actually boost the
risk of breast cancer in some high-risk women, a new study suggests.
Dutch researchers analyzed six previously published studies, four
examining the effect of low-dose radiation exposure from mammography
among women with the genetic mutation boosting breast cancer risk and
two looking at the effect of radiation from screening in women with a
family history of breast cancer.
"Women who were exposed before the age of 20 had a 2.5 times increased
risk of breast cancer," said Martine Jansen-van der Weide, an
epidemiologist and researcher at the University Medical Center
Groningen, in the Netherlands. So did women with five or more
exposures.
She was to present the findings Monday at the Radiological Society of
North America's annual meeting in Chicago.
No information was available from the studies about the time period,
said Jansen-van der Weide. The studies did control for different
factors that affect breast cancer risk, such as age, breast-feeding
and age at first menstruation.
These new findings come in the wake of a controversial recommendation
made in mid-November by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for
the general public, that women delay routine screening mammograms from
age 40 to 50, asking their doctor the best time to begin, and that
older women switch to every-other-year mammograms.
Currently, the American Cancer Society and other organizations advise
yearly mammograms for women beginning at age 40. For high-risk women,
the ACS recommends a mammogram and MRI every year.
Overall, the Dutch researchers also found, the average risk of breast
cancer from radiation exposure was 1.5 times greater among the
high-risk women studied than the high-risk women not exposed.
The study is important, as it provides the ''first direct piece of
evidence on whether high-risk women have an increased risk due to
radiation exposure," said Edward Hendrick, a member of the American
College of Radiology Commission, a medical physicist and clinical
professor at the University of Colorado at Denver.
In the United States, women under 30 don't routinely get mammograms,
however, he said. It's known that young women are more
radiation-sensitive.
Young women who are deemed high-risk can, if they choose, turn to an
MRI breast exam instead, he said. MRIs use magnetic or radio waves,
not radiation.
"Screening is very important," Jansen-van der Weide said. "However,
for young, high-risk women, a careful approach is advised when
considering mammography for screening."
Tim Bolen
> Important news from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal:http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
>
> For years, it seemed obvious to me that attacking breasts with cancer
> causing radiation was a bad idea.
>
> Yet the cancer industry and their PR teams have promoted it with
> abandon.http://www.breastimplantawareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htmhttp://www.breastimplantawareness.org/snake-oil.htm
>
Ilena:
I was thinking - sarcasm intended - that perhaps breast cancer
surgeons could just set up an assembly line of women. Start by giving
them a calming drink before they go into the back room. Then
something a little stronger before they head over to the mammogram
machine. Then when they get them firmly clamped in place maybe they
could just chain saw them off (as a preventive measure?), letting the
women fall back onto a gurney where they could be wheeled down to see
Doctor "Silicone Pete," who says, cheerfully, "Would you like to
supersize that?"
Uh Oh... Maybe I just gave "Orac the Nipple Ripper" something to put
in the Suggestion Box...
Tim Bolen
AusShane
> Important news from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal:http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
>
> For years, it seemed obvious to me that attacking breasts with cancer
> causing radiation was a bad idea.
>
> Yet the cancer industry and their PR teams have promoted it with
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091201/hl_hsn/mammogramsmayboostcancerr...
>
Simple fact - in 1950 the 5 year survival rate for breast cancer was
20%. Today it is between 80 and 90% that's called success. MRI is
still to prove itself for breast cancer screening. Screening is part
of that success it seems most of the posters here live in a utopian
fantasy land where there are no consequences. Everything we do has a
consequence - its called the risk benefit ratio. It reflects a simple
reality that many people here either fail to grasp or ignore.
Tim Jackson
> Aus Shane:
>
> Not a simple fact at all - but a marketing "made-up" statistic. More
> people die from cancer now than ever before. Chemo, radiation and
> surgery simply do not work, and cannot be shown to work - no matter
> how well the numbers are manipulated. There is no evidence based
> medicine in cancer care. Just murderous greed.
>
> Tim Bolen
Those a sweeping statements and an over-simplification. Last time I
looked at the statistics in a lot of cases surgery does work, there are
many people walking around who would not be here if not for breast
cancer surgery, my own mother included. Hormone therapy does work,
recurrences rates can be shown to be reduced significantly, by perhaps a
half, and there is little question about the cost-benefit balance.
Chemotherapy is harder to justify, it is expensive there is a lot of
loss of life-quality involved, and in a lot of cases it is fairly
futile, it is mostly a short-term life-prolonging exercise gaining an
average of only a few months, but for a minority it has a dramatic
benefit, which of course makes the headlines.
It may well be true that more people die of cancer now, but it is
unarguable that they do so at a greater age, and more people also
survive cancer, both can be true, eg you can get it more than once. The
nature of the beast is that if you live long enough, cancer will always
get you in the end, so progress against other diseases and accidental
death necessarily make the raw cancer statistics look worse, this is not
a true measure of success or failure, and decent statisticians will
control for such effects.
On the other hand Pharma (and the US medical system) is indeed about
profits. Greed drives the stock market, and the stock market drives
industry. But the adjective "murderous" implies malice aforethought,
which I don't think is present: under English law it would at worst be
manslaughter, not murder. Drug companies do not set out to kill
patients, there is no profit in that. But it is unquestionable that
they do spend a lot more for example trying to cure AIDS than malaria,
simply because the patient population is richer.
Tim Jackson
Mark Probert
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hello Tim Jackson.
You are responding to Fake-Tim, real name Patrick, Bolen, a
professional trouble maker. Look up one of his cleints, Stuie Suster.
Tim Jackson
> Hello Tim Jackson.
>
> You are responding to Fake-Tim, real name Patrick, Bolen, a
> professional trouble maker. Look up one of his cleints, Stuie Suster.
Who cares? I'm responding to what was posted on
alt.support.cancer.breast, in the interest of balance, not to who posted
it or why. Some people do still actually read the group.
Tim Jackson
Eva
"Tim Jackson" <t...@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aP2dnbBVLI0hOIfW...@brightview.co.uk...
I still do actually read the group, but filtering out Ilena Rose and those
who respond to her is quite a job. It's scary to think someone is so
obsessed with getting their insane message through to those who aren't
interested in it that they keep changing their headers to outwit
killfilters. She's like a fucking jihadist.
<wipes brow> Sorry.
Eva
Peter B
> But it is unquestionable that they do spend a lot more for example
> trying to cure AIDS than malaria, simply because the patient
> population is richer.
>
>
> Tim Jackson
A popular misconception. We spend more money on research for a cure
because it is PS to do so. Many want to show their concern for them as
part of a political stratigergy, some because it is related to much of
Africa (but that was their strawman argument) We spend far more on
taking care of those people then for our mom's and sisters. Theirs was a
disease by choice, easily prevented. Also, the economic scale of those
"protected ones" is no different then the rest of the world.
Caught early and cut out early chances of survival are best. Not to
start a new thread but since most are considered to be viral , like many
other diseases, why isn't our focus there? And why are we spending so
MUCH money on AIDS for Americans when our mom's and sisters generally
need it most and *are* the carriers of our future children.
I suspect the spending of monies in the UK are no different than here
except for them cutting back on breast surgeries, etc.
Mark Probert
Understood. Just be wary of cross posts. Some of the people who post
from m.h.a. are "strange".
Jan Drew
Liar.
Jan Drew
Like Mark S Probert. Strange he remained silent when disbarred.
Has an insane need to argue.
Mark Probert
Nope,, you dope. Bolen's real name is Patrick Timothy Bolen and the
person who posted does come from Mighigan where he is an
epidemiologist. I found his professional email address, etc.
No lies, expecpt from Patty Bolen and Hulda Clark who is decomposing.
Tim Bolen
>
> - Show quoted text -
poor mark:
The conventional cancer community has contributed nothing towards
ridding the popuation of the cancer problem. The statistics clearly
show that depite the constant claim that "a cure is right around the
corner - just give us more money" they have accomplished nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Except take our money. Notice that there were thirty-seven
"nothing"s? One for each year since President Nizon first funded "The
War on Cancer," which the conventional cancer community claimed, at
the time, they would win within two years.
Maybe this is a good reason to reopen Guantanamo Bay?
Righteous in California...
Tim Bolen
Mark Probert
Hello FakeTim, A/K/A RealPatty:
>
> The conventional cancer community has contributed nothing towards
> ridding the popuation of the cancer problem.
Untrue.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091207/hl_nm/us_cancer_usa
"Fewer people are getting cancer and death rates continue to fall,
according to the latest report on cancer in the United States,
released on Monday.
New diagnoses for all types of cancer fell by almost 1 percent per
year on average from 1999 to 2006 and deaths fell 1.6 percent per year
from 2001 to 2006,"
The statistics clearly
> show that depite the constant claim that "a cure is right around the
> corner -
The only one who is saying that is you, and you are clearly
delusional.
> just give us more money" they have accomplished nothing.
See stats, above. You do not have a clue as to what your are
flatulating about.
Correct. You know a lot of nothing.
> Except take our money. Notice that there were thirty-seven
> "nothing"s? One for each year since President Nizon first funded "The
> War on Cancer," which the conventional cancer community claimed, at
> the time, they would win within two years.
>
> Maybe this is a good reason to reopen Guantanamo Bay?
For morons like you.
> Righteous in California...
Anything but...
>
> Tim Bolen- Hide quoted text -
Jan Drew
>
>
> Hello FakeTim, A/K/A RealPatty:
Is not fake, not AKA/AReal Patti.
Stop lying and harassing.
>
>
>
> >
Jan Drew
�
>
> Untrue.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091207/hl_nm/us_cancer_usa
the National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, American Cancer Society and the North American Association
of Central Cancer Registries reported.
*Organized medicine*
Sad that Mark falls that.
Tim Bolen
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
poor mark:
1%?
1%?
1%?
1%?
1%?
1%?
1%?
1%?
Did you actually claim that 1%?
1%?
1%?
1%?
is a success rate?
There is a plus or minus 2.5% factor in every study.
So the real numbers could have actually an increased 1.5%....
You are really grasping... sorry - that's not significant. Just
another manipulated number.
Not pleased in California...
Tim Bolen
Mark Probert
> On Dec 7, 10:02 pm, Mark Probert <mark.probe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hello FakeTim, A/K/A RealPatty:
>
> jurim...@yahoo.com
>
> Is not fake, not AKA/AReal Patti.
His relative, who I vetted, said he is a fake Tim.
> Stop lying and harassing.
I did nothing of the sort. I was being correct. Sad that you cannot
be.
Mark Probert
Which beats out dis-organized quackery every day.
> Sad that Mark falls that.
What is sad is that you are as stupid as you are.
Mark Probert
You cherry pick. Typical asshole.
> There is a plus or minus 2.5% factor in every study.
So you say. You cannot prove that.
> So the real numbers could have actually an increased 1.5%....
No.
> You are really grasping... sorry - that's not significant. Just
> another manipulated number.
From a manipulator as you are...
>
> Not pleased in California...
Big feces.
> PATRICK Bolen- Hide quoted text -