|
-------Original Message-------
Date: Sunday, June 17,
2001 01:03:56 PM
Please copy and distribute to other interested individuals and
groups
**********
Mammogram Radiation
Debate:
From:
Cancer Solutions: Rife, Energy Medicine, and
Medical Politics:
by Barry Lynes
(ordering info
below)
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).
|
