|
Table of Contents |
AWe
Alert:
|
October 8, 2000
|
|
|
From: OBRL-News <demeo@mind.net> Orgone Biophysical Research Lab <demeo@mind.net> http://www.orgonelab.org Forwarded News Item
In Pulse of the Planet #4 (1993, pages 163-164), I made the argument that the mammogram was dangerous to the health of women, did not reduce breast cancer but actually increased it, and was in fact part of a larger epidemic of willful ignorance on the part of modern medicine which factually artificially increases the rates of breast cancer. The article attached below provides additional support for this depressing point of view. The epidemic of willful medical ignorance includes, but is not limited to, the following aspects: 1) Giving women's breasts x-radiation, which is known to cause cancer all by itself. Some doctors are so terribly ignorant about the x-radiation hazards of mammograms, or secretively full of hate and sadistic rage towards women (or both) that they order up mammograms to ignorant and compliant women every 6 months or so. I have met such women, heard their stories, and so know this is a fact. This is especially true if there is a "history of cancer" in the woman's family -- a history which might be caused by drinking the same carcinogen-contaminated water for several generations, or suffering the "doctor knows best" syndrome of unquestioning compliance to white-coated authority; this latter factor translates into mothers, sisters and daughters all getting regular mammograms, sometimes from the same family doctor. So, a higher proportion of such compliant families seccumb to the radiation damage, which is misinterpreted as an "hereditary factor". 2) Giving women scientifically unproven and highly questionable"genetic screening" tests for the hypothetical "breast cancer gene", the predictive accuracy of which has never been demonstrated in long-term controlled, blinded studies using socio-economically balanced groups tracked over time, to see if they are accurate predictors of cancer, or not. Sometimes, women who are given such a test and flagged as "positive" are subjected to psychological terrorism about breast cancer, and brainwashed into having "preventative mastectomies" wherein perfectly healthy breasts are amputated by the whitecoats, who then step forward to claim how they have "saved another woman from the time-bomb of the breast cancer gene". It is all perfectly rationalized under the facade of white-coated hospital authoritarianism, but also perfectly insane, and perfectly barbaric, worse in its rationalizations in fact than female genital mutilation in Africa,which at least is undertaken for the "honest" motivation to "destroy female sexuality in society" (ie, to "tame the female sexual urge", to "cool down the woman"). Our whitecoats are today doing thousands of "preventative" breast mutilations every year, and the numbers are mixed in with ordinary breast cancer statistics, inflating the numbers. This factor alone may account for the claimed new "epidemic" of breast cancer. It is possible that as much as 20% of all breast surgeries done today in the USA are "preventative" mutilations performed on healthy women -- I base this figure upon statements given on National Public Radio (Talk of the Nation, Science Friday, 21 Aug. 1992), that 20% of Sloane-Kettering Memorial's mastectomies were "preventatives". Since 1992, this percentage has probably inflated considerably. Add to this shocking high level of "official medical quackery" and hospital sadism another high percentage of real cancers induced by unnecessary x-radiation from mammograms, and we can legitimately ask: How much of the "American breast cancer epidemic" is due to iatrogenic (physician-caused) factors? Now comes the report below about cancer lies and cancer hype from the American Cancer Society (is their function to increase cancer, or decrease it??), which apparently now takes marketing advice from used car salesmen (get 'em in the front door, however you can!) and a Canadian study on mammograms (attached below).
James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory,
Greensprings Center, PO Box 1148, Ashland, Oregon
97520 USA http://www.orgonelab.org
+++++
Another View Breast Cancer Detection - Trick or Treatment? by Bill Sturgeon World cancer expert Samuel Epstein M.D. writes in dismay: "A leading Massachusetts newspaper featured an American Cancer Society (ACS) advertisement that promised early detection (of breast cancer) results in a cure 'nearly one hundred percent of the time.'" Upon being questioned about this figure by a reporter, an ACS communications director responded: "The ad isn't based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. . . You exaggerate a point," Epstein wrote. On the other side of that door is, of course, a mammogram machine that draws $125 (national average) per patient. Doctors tell you that this mammogram provides the earliest possible cancer warning, so keep getting them. Since the average age of a mammogram-disclosed tumor is seven years, what the doctors must really mean is, let's find that tumor before it has metastasized (spread via multiple and inoperable secondary tumors). Canadian Study The Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study tracked 50,000 women in their 40s from 1980-1988. Half received periodic mammograms, the rest periodic tactile palpation exams only. The results were shocking and remain controversial: "...the increased risk of death from breast cancer for women undergoing mammography was reported to be a full 36 percent" . . .over those who received palpation only. The director of the study observed: "One potential problem was that surgery, the anesthetic and radiotherapy involved in treating women with breast cancer were interfering with immunity. [As a result] the initial radiation and surgery to remove tiny breast lumps discovered by mammograms may make secondary cancers elsewhere grow faster. . . You may find the cancers earlier (with mammography), but the women are still going to die. Modern treatment does not work for these early cancers." Mammograms Earlier (Senior News, October 1997) I wrote of the cumulative health damagedone by the mammogram's X-rays. Much more damaging than that is the squashing of a breast in the machine's vise. A malignant tumor, if flattened in the mammogram machine, may rupture small blood vessels and leak cancer cells to spread elsewhere.(Sam Epstein, The Politics of Cancer Revisited, 1998.) If a mammogram reads positive, the woman can expect to receive a follow-up biopsy. In this procedure the doctor scoops out a sample of the tumor mass and withdraws it for laboratory microscopic examination. This is a problem. When the piece of steel scoops out and withdraws a malignant tissue sample, it can leave cancer cells, or cell clusters, strewn along the withdrawal trail to further spread. Anectodal onconology reports in peer review journals show multiple incidence of this occurring at the site of the needle track.
Trick Numbers Both the doctors and the ACS medical statisticians will say that they equate survival rate with five symptom-free years following conventional surgery-radiation-chemotherapy treatment. At the end of that time, the patient is declared cured and removed from the statistical data base. But an average five-year-old breast tumor is smaller than a pinhead and undetectable by any accepted means; while the average breast tumor, growing exponentially, takes seven years before a mammogram will disclose it. My ongoing research leads me to believe that a mammogram and needle biopsy produces 1) surgery, chemo and/or radiation to remove all perceptible evidence of the cancer while 2) spreading imperceptible cancer cells to the lymph and blood systems where they are free to re-establish themselves anywhere they happen to land. There they grow and ultimately reveal themselves, on schedule, seven years later. Remember, however, the woman was pronounced "cured" after five years. Doctors seldom discuss any connection between the old cancer and a new cancer. If my research is correct, then the allopathic cancer industry has built a five-year blame-proof wall around recurring cancers.
Bill Sturgeon of Petrolia is a medical science writer. His e-mail is sturgeon@asis.com. Editor's note: Each year during nationally observed Breast Cancer Month in October, along with community events to celebrate and mourn cancer "fighters" (Senior News, October 1995), Senior News has also attempted to bring in alternative thinking about this and other diseases and the medical industry surrounding them. We are grateful to local medical science writer Bill Sturgeon for his continuing contributions. October 1998: Thermograms, alternative to mammograms. October 1997: How safe are mammograms? Chart: X-Ray dose scale. October 1996: Book review: Breast Cancer? Breast Health! by Susun Weed. October 1995: Editorial, the politics of breast cancer; Booklist for healing cancer. October 1994: AIDS Quilt comes to HSU.
An additional resource for breast cancer information is Breast Cancer Action, a San Francisco nonprofit working to end the breast cancer epidemic. BCA's web site is http://www.bcaction.org
Senior News http://www.humguide.com/~humguide/seniornews/issues/9910c.shtml
|