<<lovingpurelove >> Fwd: Re: Over 250 mammograms funded in October
- Oh Ulla you have proven yourself to be an angel yet again!!I agree with you and haven't really had the time to fully research this subject, mostly going on a gut feeling!! I will definitely join you in this information sharing and I look forward to getting any information you can share with us so we can share with others.I had a mammogram when I was 28 because of a lump I felt and since the results were positive, they never called me or let me know the results....at all!! I had to get my mother's doctor to check it out and help me find out what this was! I was totally amazed and this was my first. I waited to succumb to the 'recommendations' of doctors until 12 years later and still no real follow up and I was not given a full answer to my questions as to how much radiation was put into my body and how it could cause damage to my otherwise healthy body. This started my questions and I look forward to getting your information!Thanks again,Susan
>>> crystalpyramid@... 11/3/2003 3:11:52 PM >>>
I have just sent the following letter to Tim and Greg (owners of www.thehungersite.com, www.TheBreastCancerSite.com, www.care2.com and other generally excellent "click-to-help" initiatives) in reply to their happily announcing the funding of 250 mammograms in October...
(The one sorry exception among their humanitarian sites is www.TheBreastCancerSite.com which aims to provide and heavily promotes free mammograms for "women in need"...)
Please consider joining me in "swamping" Tim and Greg with information why promoting mammograms may not be in the best interest of women. I can upload all the info I sent to them so far to the files section (it's information-packed material why mammograms are neither safe nor a good early-detection system).
From investigating the cancer "treatment" and diagnosis subject for 2 and a half years, I have learned that this is an area were darkness "reigns" widely...
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 20:49:37 +0100
Subject: Re: Over 250 mammograms funded in October
At 10:04 30.10.03, you wrote:Dear ulla,
We've got exciting news to share from our family of do-good Web sites, and meaningful gifts that will warm inside and out...
Supporters Exceed Goal to Fund 250 Mammograms
We're thrilled to announce that as of Tuesday, supporters of The Breast Cancer Site met the October challenge to fund 250 mammograms during Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It's a new site record! Let's build on this success and make early detection of breast cancer a priority all-year long...
One woman in eight either has or will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. Each year, 182,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer and 43,300 die. However, if detected early, the five-year survival rate exceeds 95%. You can help... after making your daily click to help children, click over to The Breast Cancer Site to help women in need receive this lifesaving test.
Dear Tim and Greg,
I wrote to you a year ago re the inaccuracy of the above "early detection success" statements and the less-than-desirability of mammography to further women's health, providing substantial scientific proof as well as suggested alternatives.
Sadly, I never received a reply or comment from you re the extensive earlier information I sent you, emanating from various excellent scientific sources unanimously concluding on the deleterious character of mammograms and strongly advising against their use.
Here is more incontrovertible scientific proof that mammograms are not a positive contribution to women's health but rather the opposite. Anyone investigating mammography's pros and cons will arrive at the same conclusion ("no to mammograms") if allowing the question honest consideration.
By widely encouraging women and men to hold an unwarranted positive view of mammography (through your highly frequented and otherwise excellent-seeming humanitarian websites), you seem to shoulder a heavy responsibility and I urge you to become aware of this ...
This is one topic where the line between advertising and scientific proof has become very blurred. As far back as 1976, the American Cancer Society itself and its government colleague the National Cancer Institute terminated the routine use of mammography for women under the age of 50 because of its "detrimental" (carcinogenic) effects. More recently, a large study done in Canada found that women who had routine mammograms before the age of 50 also had increased death rates from breast cancer by 36%. (Miller) Lorraine Day [MD, who cured herself naturally from so-called terminal breast cancer] notes the same findings in her video presentation "Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Any More." The reader is directed to these sources and should perhaps consider the opinion of other sources than those selling the procedure, before making a decision.
John McDougall MD has made a thorough review of pertinent literature on mammograms. He points out that the $5-13 billion per year generated by mammograms controls the information that women get. Fear and incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade women to get routine mammograms. What is clear is that mammography cannot prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by mammography, it has been there as long as 12 years! It is therefore ridiculous to advertise mammography as "early detection." (McDougall p 114)
The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast cancer, which they don't. On the contrary, the painful compression of breast tissue during the procedure itself can increase the possibility of metastasis by as much as 80%! Dr. McDougall notes that a between 10 and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a self-limiting non-life-threatening type called ductal carcinoma in situ. This harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive force of routine mammography. (McDougall, p105)
Most extensive studies show no increased survival rate from routine screening mammograms. After reviewing all available literature in the world on the subject, noted researchers Drs. Wright and Mueller of the University of British Columbia recommended the withdrawal of public funding for mammography screening, because the "benefit achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is substantial." (Lancet, 1 Jul 1995) The harm they're referring to includes the constant worrying and emotional distress, as well as the tendency for unnecessary procedures and testing to be done based on results which have a false positive rate as high as 50%. (New York Times, 14 Dec 1997)
excerpted from Tim O'Shea: TO THE CANCER PATIENT http://www.thedoctorwithin.com
Posting message to this list:
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.