Please Remain Here With Me - Breast Cancer

[lilliancasey0320]

"Please Remain Here With Me."

Dear Ladies,

Those are the words I would like for you to use on
the next nurse, therapist, or physician who is about
to expose your breasts to x-rays with that horrible
cancer-causing process known as mammography.

Ask the medical associate to stay with you in the
same room while you are being x-rayed. The response
most likely be, "No way!" You will then get an
explanation that repeated exposures may lead to
his or her cancer. At that moment, your response
should be:

"I am not asking you to do this for everybody. Just
for me. Just expose your body to the same exposure
that you are about to give to me."

This weekend, I participated in a health fair at Temple
Sholom in River Edge, New Jersey, speaking twice. At the
same time I lectured, there was a female physician
lecturing on Genetic Predisposition to Cancer. Her hospital
and institute generates enormous cash flow by testing
people for cancers. She recommends yearly mammographies
for women.

Before our lectures, we spoke privately. It is my opinion
that such mammographies do more harm than good. They expose
women to harmful x-rays, and the nature of their diagnostic
strength is to identify commonly occurring cancers that
most adult women already have in their bodies. Cancers that
are quite common and usually do not progress.

This same physician handed out brochures from the American
Cancer Society. One brochure's title is:

"The Older You Get, The More You Need a Mammogram"

On page 3, this question is asked:

"Mammograms are x-rays. Are they safe?"

The response:

"Over the past 20 years, mammography techniques and equipment
have improved a great deal, and today the level of radiation
is very low and harmless."

If that is true, your aide should be happy to share the room
with you as you are exposed to "low and harmless" x-rays.

On November 8, 1994, the New York Times reported that
virtually all adults over age 50 have cancers. The same
autopsy study revealed that 39.6 percent of women between
the ages of 40 and 50 have breast cancer, although only
one percent in that age group are clinically diagnosed.
In other words, cancer is the rule, not the exception.
Do not let their machines scare you. Say no to mammography.

What is the real purpose of mammography? To scare women
and generate more cash flow for physicians. What makes me
so damned cynical?

Ask your death care provider (or health care provider)
to share the x-ray room with you next time you are zapped.
The cancer brocure guarantees its safety. That's just not
true. Carefully note his or her educated response to:

"Please Remain Here With Me."

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com

[Guest]

How do you suggest women screen for breast cancer??? My 25yr. old sister was just diagnosed with DCIS that was not visible on an ultrasound or MRI - this diagnosis was years before a lump would have been palpable. The mammogram quite possibly saved her life. Believe me, I am not a fan of radiation. However, unless you have a better option maybe you should keep your OPINION to yourself.

[Health Dr. 2]

Hi

Thought I would reply to your message since I am on monitor duty today. Also the article to which you reference is one by Robert Cohen and was posted by someone else other than Robert.

DCIS or ductile carcinoma in not invasive unless it is labeled invasive (IDC). But what is being found is that if the breast is mashed or squeezed then the chance for metastisis becomes greater. This type of breast cancer is the most common diagnosed and continues to be on the rise.

Mammograms do not have a good track record as they can produce a lot of false negatives and false positives.

A better option than mammography and the radiation that you are exposed to (the last thing that a cancer patient needs is radiation) is thermography. The results using thermography are very impressive. Do an internet search and you will come up with the details.

Please consider the following as a possibility:
(read the whole article at: http://www.laleva.cc/food/aspartame_stoddard.html)

The following statistics are from SEER, (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) The statistics are age standardized and computed to account for slight surges, due to mammogram screening.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women between the ages of 35-54. In 1971, a woman's lifetime risk for contracting breast cancer was one in fourteen. Today it is one in eight. (The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. and David Steinman, Macmillan, 1997)

Breast cancer began to rise rapidly concurrent with the use of aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), when it was approved in 1981 for table top use in dry foods and, in 1983, for use in sweetening aqueous solutions - carbonated beverages.

Between 1940-1982, there was a steady, annual rate of breast cancer increase of about 1% per year.

Between 1982-1987, the increase in breast cancer accelerated to 4%, annually. (ACS)

Between 1983-1988 the per capita consumption of aspartame quadrupled (USDA)

Increased longevity is not the reason for the rise in breast cancer cases. Life expectancy rates have remained relatively stable since 1950, while the incidence of breast cancer has increased by about 55% (The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. and David Steinman), Macmillan, 1997)

Mammogram accounts for finding 10% of all breast cancer cases. The woman herself discovers the other 90% of breast cancer cases.

Although the numbers are recorded separately from other breast cancers by the American Cancer Society, DCIS, Ductile Carcinoma in Situ accounts for 40% of all breast cancer detected by mammogram. DCIS is abnormal (sometimes called pre-cancerous) cells confined to the milk ducts of the breasts.

On a mammogram, DCIS shows up as tiny specks of calcium.(Wessex Cancer Trust, England).

Oncologists now categorize different kinds of DCIS (cribiform, comedo, papillary, solid type, low intermediate and high nuclear grade) One description of a case of DCIS, comedo type reads: Solid sheets of malignant cells fill the dilated (milk) ducts. The center of the involved ducts undergoes necrosis and calcification (Online, Management of Breast Diseases).

From 1983-1989, the years in which aspartame use quadrupled, DCIS rose 52%. There were 23,000 DCIS cases in 1992; 30,000 in 1996 and 36,000 estimated for 1998, 200% higher than was projected in 1983. (Ductile Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast by Gil Lederman, M.D.)

"A Diagnosis on the Rise." "Is It Really Breast Cancer?" "Weighing Treatment Options", and "A Mysterious Condition" are medical problems "Good Housekeeping" magazine tried to answer for their readers, in 1996.

The problem is that there is no way to tell if early stage cancer, as DCIS is sometimes called, will develop into invasive cancer. The only information about its natural course comes from three small studies which found 30% of women who had biopsies developed breast cancer within ten years of the biopsies, but it wasn't clear why this happened in some cases and not in others.

DCIS is a poorly understood condition. A University of California, San Francisco report, found that while the number of cases of ductile carcinoma in situ has risen dramatically in the last 15 years, clinicians still do not know the best treatment approach.

In 1992, 10,000 American women diagnosed with DCIS underwent a mastectomy.

The increasing incident rates for DCIS "mirror what all of us have been seeing in practice for the last decade", says Dr. Hiram Cody, a breast cancer specialist at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. "This study (from UCSF) creates the impression that a large number of women are being treated with mastectomy, but these numbers are declining all the time."

Dr. Virginia Ernster, UCSF professor: "These findings (the unexpected increase in DCIS) underscore an urgent need to determine the best treatment for DCIS, as well as for research to define which DCIS cases will progress to invasive cancer."

When aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet) is exposed to temperatures above 86 degrees F, it breaks down into its neurotoxins faster.

Also take a look at:
http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/16/mammograms.htm
http://www.mercola.com/fcgi/pf/2000/oct/29/thermography.htm
http://www.breastthermography.org

These are just some places to start. Hopefully your sister will take the time to educate herself (natural medicine and allopathic medicine) as to what treatments are availabe and what has the most success rate while helping her body to get healthy.

Take Care & Be Well,
Health Dr. 2

[mrs.mitchell]

You know, while reading this entire exchange, I felt nothing but contempt. I find it difficult to believe that people are so hung up on "sticking it to the man" that they would honestly lead people to believe that mammograms are more harmful than useful. To be honest, the last entry I read was chalk-full of various statistics PROVING that they were harmful, but, if I looked hard enough, I could find stats that proved I was born on Mars. I find it extremely dangerous to offer medical advice when not an actual medical doctor, in fact, I know that it is a highly illegal endeavour in the country I live in. I am not claiming, however, that every woman requires a mammogram. My best friend, who is only 38, has recently been diagnosed with ductile carcinoma and has a double mastectomy scheduled in two weeks. She, because of the pain, refused a mammogram, strictly because it would cause her extreme discomfort. She insisted on alternate testing, and her cancer was discovered. I am simply saying that mammograms, while completely uncomfortable, DO provide an invaluable service to women-like it or not.
As for the "Remain with me..." posting-I find that absolutely ridiculous! To use this as an argument that women should not receive mammograms is completely ignorant. I ask this; Do you visit the dentist?! Have you ever received a dental x-ray? It is not that the single dose of x-rays is so harmful, it is the repetitive nature of the occupation! These health professionals are not being cold or fearful, but if you were repeatedly exposed to radiation numerous times a day, you would be singing a different tune! Unless you want to be responsible for not only leading women to believe that mammograms are useless, but also alienating a group of valuable professionals, I would consider really researching what you are "talking" about. No profession is infallible.

[ghchealth]

Why do we need to argue the fact about whether or not mammograms are harmfull. What doctors need to do is to use thermography which is a safe and effective way to screen breasts for abnormalities.

[Guest]

Great discussion.

The real concern is that we really do not have effective means to discover cancer. Mammagrams give a lot of false negatives and a lot of false positives. Even thermography is not accurate all the time. Even the CEA cancer marker tests are not accurate and in fact at the bottom of your blood work lab page will be a disclaimer saying that the CEA tumor marker tests are not recommended for cancer diagnosis.

It is been recorded that pathologists are told to err on the side of caution when looking at specimens. In other words, if it's not clear to them if a biopsy is cancer then they will err on the side of caution and say it is cancer. And what if the person really doesn't have cancer?? Guess we all know what happens after a positive biopsy.

I am sure there are many situations that would beg the question for both sides of this argument---whether or not mammograms save lives. Even some of the medical establishment says that they do not. In fact sometimes a cancer is discovered so early that it "could" actually take care of itself. But instead the women is hurried through surgery and then chemo/radiation. The side-effects of chemo actually kill or damage many people. So it is kind-of like a two-edged sword.

Thermography is not always accurate and can give many negatives.

One thing that is beginning to be used and shows much promise is MRI for the breast. While not completely safe, it is safer than mammography and probably more accurate than thermography. Not many women know about the possibility of detecting breast cancer with an MRI.

And, of course, prevention is the best key. Healthy diet, exercise, stress reduction, avoiding the use of synthetic HRT, avoiding hormone laden meat and dairy, sunshine, etc.

There is also some promising areas that say women with breast cancer are iodine deficient and that iodine may be an answer.

Lot's of possibilities and lots of experiences. We cannot choose for another person, but instead, present the facts (whether we agree with them or not). Opinions are not facts and really, neither are statistics because no one has to be a statistic. We are all different and what works for one may not work for another.


Lori

[painlessjoe]

In most cases, lumps can be uncovered by self tests and / or by a massage therapist, a doctor, a nurse and any other specialists in the field. Some doctors recommend mammograms to ladies of a certain age and up every year which I do not recommend. If a certain lump and / or problem is detected, yes and by all mean, Have the mammogram.

To say that a person is deficient in certain vitamins and / or intakes too much of certain food / products, this has not yet been proven. No doctor and / or specialist know how breast cancer starts. I, for one, work on breast cancer prevention. I have over 5 to 6 patients who had breast cancer and most of them could have been prevented but we are somewhat blinded by the truth which is just infront of our eyes. We seem to believe all those so called expert who are making a ton of money on the people's backs who trust them.

As for a guess putting his / her input without showing her / his forum name, must mean that you are not tottally sincere in your remarks on this forum. Have the nerve to show your forum name.