Re: Americans also believe too many ACS claims about cancer

Advertisement
Epsom Salt Encapsulated
Hulda Clark Cleanse Kits

Yes, tobacco warnings are preventative - but how did they come about? When the evidence finally became so overwhelming that Big Tobacco could no longer buy off enough mainstream researchers we finally began seeing tobacco warnings. So far that has not happened, by and large, for the other root causes of cancer.

It can be argued that Mammography, Pap tests and Colonoscopy are not preventative so much as they are tests designed to get patient into earlier mainstream treatment. Early detection and removal do not cure anything and they do not cure the cause of abnormal cells or cancer, which often returns. When the cancer does not return it is not because the procedure cured the cancer - it is because the body's immune system cured the root cause of the cancer that was removed. The most surgery can co is buy time for the body to succeed - and in a great many instances, the surgery is unnecessary and the cancer could have been treated naturally and less invasively.

And then you have the patients that such tests cause to patients to be entered into the world of chemo and radiation, which kill more than they cure and do nothing to address the underlying causes of cancer. Without much more than lip service at best to the natural things they could do to beat their cancers without damaging or destroying major organs and the immune systems.

Colonoscopy carries many risks. The major risk is that the air introduced into the colon during colonoscopy is under too much pressure. This can cause the colon to burst in the worst case or to expand so much that nearby organs are injured. Another high risk is that the end of the tube (usually harder or firmer than the remainder of the tube) pierces the colon and so injures nearby organs.

It is also well documented that a patient undergoing a Colonoscopy has the distinct possibility of contracting a disease such as one of the following, from a non-sterile instrument: HPV, or Human Papilloma Virus, (which manifests in the form of genital warts, but is better known as a leading cause of cervical cancer); HIV, Human Immunodeficiency Virus; Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Helicobacter pylori, or H pylori, (which infects the intestinal tract); Hepatitis B and C, (one deadly, one not); Salmonella; Pseudomanus and Aeroginosa, (diseases usually afflicting burn victims); Flu Viruses and other common bacteria such as, E. Coli and Kreuttzveld Jacobs Disease, or Mad Cow Disease. It is frightening to contemplate, but it is true that any of these diseases can be contracted through endoscopic procedures.

In Europe, when the populace learned about their dangers, a loud cacophony ensued. A simple solution was exercised: a condom-like sheath was applied to the invasive instrument. But here, in the U.S., the facts are 270,000 individuals were victims of cross-contamination in recent years. Proponents of the status quo will argue that those are very tiny numbers considering the 15-million individuals who had one of these examinations.

Sources:

http://en.allexperts.com/
http://www.crosscontamination.org/cross-infections.html
http://www.visionsciences.com/technology.html

As far as mammography goes, the vast majority of alternative health professionals and advocates AND a growing number of mainstream doctors believe that mammography poses more risks than benefits and a patient would be better served by self breast examinations. Of course, that advice does not put money into the pockets of mainstream medicine via doctor visits and mammography exams.

From Mercola.com http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/mammography.htm

More on the Dangers of Mammography

Recent confirmation by Danish researchers of longstanding evidence on the ineffectiveness of screening mammography has been greeted by extensive nationwide headlines. Entirely missing from this coverage, however, has been any reference to the well-documented dangers of mammography.

Screening mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer for premenopausal women. The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray.
The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening. These risks are even greater for younger women subject to "baseline screening."
Radiation risks are some four-fold greater for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers diagnosed annually.

Since 1928, physicians have been warned to handle "cancerous breasts with care -- for fear of accidentally disseminating cells" and spreading the cancer. Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful breast compression, particularly in premenopausal women, which could lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small undetected breast cancers.

Missed cancers are common in premenopausal women owing to their dense breasts, and also in postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy.

Mistakenly diagnosed cancers are common. For women with multiple risk factors including a strong family history and early menarche -- just those strongly urged to have annual mammograms -- the cumulative risks of false positives can reach as high as 100 percent over a decade's screening.

The widespread acceptance of screening has lead to overdiagnosis of pre-invasive cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ), sometimes treated radically by mastectomy and radiation, and even chemotherapy.

As increasing numbers of premenopausal women are responding to aggressively promoted screening, imaging centers are becoming flooded. Resultingly, patients referred for diagnostic mammography are now experiencing potentially dangerous delays, up to several months, before they can be examined.

The dangers and unreliability of screening are compounded by its growing and inflationary costs. Screening all premenopausal women would cost $2.5 billion annually, about 14 percent of estimated Medicare spending on prescription drugs.

These costs would be increased some fourfold if the highly profitable industry, enthusiastically supported by radiologists, succeeds in replacing film machines, costing about $100,000 each, with the latest high-tech digital machines recently approved by the FDA, costing about $400,000 each, for which there is no evidence of improved effectiveness.

The ineffectiveness and dangers of mammography pose an agonizing dilemma for the millions of women anxious for reassurance of early detection of breast cancer. However, the dilemma is more apparent than real.

As proven by a September 2000 publication, based on a unique large-scale screening study by University of Toronto epidemiologists, monthly breast self-examination (BSE) following brief training, coupled with annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health care professional, is at least as effective as mammography in detecting early tumors, and also safe.

National networks of BSE and CBE clinics staffed by trained nurses should be established to replace screening mammography. Apart from their minimal costs, such clinics would empower women and free them from increasing dependence on industrialized medicine and its complicit medical institutions.

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Professor Emeritus Environmental and Occupational Medicine Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
312-996-2297
Web site: http://www.preventcancer.com

For further details and supporting documentation, see "Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective and Practical Alternative," by Samuel S. Epstein, Barbara Seaman and Rosalie Bertell, International Journal of Health Services, volume 31(3):605-615, 2001.

Remember, in my original post I said that all in all the article was not bad until it got to the self serving part by the organs of mainstream medicine. You appear to have confusion about the American Cancer Society - if so, you should follow the link I supplied. Here is part of what you will find:

Conflicts of Interest
- Mammography Industry
- Pesticide Industry
- Drug Industry

Board of Trustees

The American Cancer Society is fixated on damage control— diagnosis and treatment— and basic molecular biology, with indifference or even hostility to cancer prevention. This myopic mindset is compounded by interlocking conflicts of interest with the cancer drug, mammography, and other industries. The "nonprofit" status of the Society is in sharp conflict with its high overhead and expenses, excessive reserves of assets and contributions to political parties. All attempts to reform the Society over the past two decades have failed; a national economic boycott of the Society is long overdue.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is accumulating great wealth in its role as a "charity." According to James Bennett, professor of economics at George Mason University and recognized authority on charitable organizations, in 1988 the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million with about $69 million of holdings in land, buildings, and equipment (1). Of that money, the ACS spent only $90 million— 26 percent of its budget— on medical research and programs. The rest covered "operating expenses," including about 60 percent for generous salaries, pensions, executive benefits, and overhead. By 1989, the cash reserves of the ACS were worth more than $700 million (2). In 1991, Americans, believing they were contributing to fighting cancer, gave nearly $350 million to the ACS, 6 percent more than the previous year. Most of this money comes from public donations averaging $3,500, and high-profile fund-raising campaigns such
as the springtime daffodil sale and the May relay races. However, over the last two decades, an increasing proportion of the ACS budget comes from large corporations, including the pharmaceutical, cancer drug, telecommunications, and entertainment industries.

In 1992, the American Cancer Society Foundation was created to allow the ACS to actively solicit contributions of more than $100,000. However, a close look at the heavy-hitters on the Foundation's board will give an idea of which interests are at play and where the Foundation expects its big contributions to come from. The Foundation's board of trustees included corporate executives from the pharmaceutical, investment, banking, and media industries. Among them:

David R. Bethune, president of Lederle Laboratories, a multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American Cyanamid Company. Bethune is also vice president of American Cyanamid, which makes chemical fertilizers and herbicides while transforming itself into a full-fledged pharmaceutical company. In 1988, American Cyanamid introduced Novatrone, an anti-cancer drug. And in 1992, it announced that it would buy a majority of shares of Immunex, a cancer drug maker.

Multimillionaire Irwin Beck, whose father, William Henry Beck, founded the nation's largest family-owned retail chain, Beck Stores, which analysts estimate brought in revenues of $1.7 billion in 1993.

Gordon Binder, CEO of Amgen, the world's foremost biotechnology company, with over $1 billion in product sales in 1992. Amgen's success rests almost exclusively on one product, Neupogen, which is administered to chemotherapy patients to stimulate their production of white blood cells. As the cancer epidemic grows, sales for Neupogen continue to skyrocket.

Diane Disney Miller, daughter of the conservative multi-millionaire Walt Disney, who died of lung cancer in 1966, and wife of Ron Miller, former president of the Walt Disney Company from 1980 to 1984.

George Dessert, famous in media circles for his former role as censor on the subject of "family values" during the 1970s and 1980s as CEO of CBS, and now chairman of the ACS board.

Alan Gevertzen, chairman of the board of Boeing, the world's number one commercial aircraft maker with net sales of $30 billion in 1992.

Sumner M. Redstone, chairman of the board, Viacom Inc. and Viacom International Inc., a broadcasting, telecommunications, entertainment, and cable television corporation.

Say, didn't I last see you telling us that mercury amalgam fillings were safe?