Medical tests (quotes)

Medical tests (quotes)
[back] Medical tests

CD 4 Test
Hepatitis
HIV
Mammography
PSA Test
Scans

"The only accepted legal medical diagnosis of cancer is by biopsy. This is not 100% accurate, for there are false positives as well as false negative biopsies. We, that is you and I, are not permitted to make a diagnosis of cancer. Nor are we permitted by law to use any system of diagnosis except biopsy for cancer diagnosis. The Medical Establishment tightly controls the diagnosis of cancer."--Dr Kelley DDS

The OTA concluded: “There are no mechanisms in place to limit dissemination of technologies regardless of their clinical value.” Shortly after the release of this report, the OTA was disbanded (1995). Death by Medicine----Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD (2003/4)

"Pap smears were designed to get women back into a doctor's office.....They con women into either biopsies or surgery for their cervix before they really have a problem.....I suggest that women never get a pap smear. It's just a way that a gynaecologist makes his boat payments."----Dr Shulze (The Sam Biser Herbal Video Collection p194)

Nortin Hadler says he would sue any doctor who tried to test his cholesterol. Likewise, his bone density, prostate levels, colon cells, etc. The Harvard-trained doc, now in his sixties and a rheumatologist and professor of medicine and microbiology/immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says you, too, should avoid these routine tests, as well as most angioplasties, bypass surgeries and routine mammograms. That's because -- contrary to what the medical establishment tells you -- the tests and procedures don't extend most lives, he says; they just convince healthy people they're sick. Skip These Tests?

When a woman undergoes a Pap smear a number of cells are collected from her cervix which are examined for changes which may be early warning signs that cancer can develop. Whether the tests are an accurate test of a woman’s gynaecological health or not is up for debate with Pap smears producing false-negative rate of 15% to 20%
I developed an interest in The Pap Smear Test in 1980’s after I received a phone call from my local GP informing me that my recent Pap Smear test was abnormal At a visit to my gynecologist I was told I had cervical dysplasia. This is also called cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. CIN or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia can be graded into CIN I, CIN II and CIN III. The Common belief is that these abnormal cells if left untreated will develop into cancer.
The next invasive and painful procedure that was inflicted upon my body and my naďve self was that of a colposcopy. This has to be one of the most degrading and painful procedures known to woman. I describe it as like being seated in a dentist’s chair only what is in the air is your vagina which is opened up and into which a male doctor peers into the cervix. The reason for this excrutiating experience is to take a biopsy of these cervical cells. I was told this would not be painful. Other than childbirth itself, I have yet to experience such agonising pain as he sunk his sharp blade into my cervix and lifted out my wayward cells. The recommended treatment was a hysterectomy. Being thirty- five years old and the mother of three children it was assumed that I would not want to mother again so let’s just whip out the uterus! Thank goodness I sought a second opinion on the necessity or otherwise of a hysterectomy.Cervical Cancer Vaccine?

CD 4 Test [See: CD4 test]
The second leg of the selection process for poisoning Africans with ARVs is CD4 cell counting, on the premise that such a count indicates a person’s immune status, i.e. his health. But as early as April 1994, having employed CD4 cell counts as a surrogate marker for drug efficacy in the Concorde trial, the researchers reported the irrelevance of this laboratory measure and its lack of a correlation to clinical health in Lancet 343(8902):871-81, noting that the results of the study call into question the uncritical use of CD4 cell counts as a surrogate endpoint for assessment of benefit from long-term antiretroviral therapy. Anthony Brink's criminal complaint of genocide laid against Zackie Achmat

It has been known since at least 1993 (when the results of the Concorde AZT study were published), and has been publicly admitted by public health officials, that the CD4 test is worthless; nevertheless, this worthless test is still being used to evaluate the alleged efficacy of toxic and worthless AIDS drugs. 'AIDS: A Death Cult' by John Lauritsen

Hepatitis [See: Hepatitis]
"If you read the literature very carefully, you will find that, while there is a strong marker for the disease, there is no hard scientific evidence to support the existence of a hepatitis C virus. Clearly, a non-A, non-B hepatitis disease exists, but the science behind an associated virus is weak at best. As a scientist I am compelled to ask, how can we vaccinate people against a disease-causing agent that has not been fully characterized?"---Dr Urnovitz

"It became clear, also, what's happening in the field of hepatitis. They are not dealing with a virus. Of course, there's a possibility to enrich certain kinds of proteins in blood products, which then cause severe autoimmune reactions, but only in very stressed-out people, never in non-stressed people. When they learned to take out these proteins from the blood products, or dilute them, there are not hepatic problems anymore.....there's no such thing as infectious hepatitis (and no hepatitis viruses)."--Dr Lanka www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/mgglanka.htm

Hepatitis C: Read Inventing the AIDS Virus by Duesberg (Phantom Viruses and Big Bucks p83-87)

BSE/AIDS/Hepatitis C Infectious or Intoxication Diseases? By Claus Köhnlein

HIV [See: HIV tests]
If commerce laws were applied equally, the “knowing is beautiful” ads for HIV testing would have to bear a disclaimer, just like cigarettes: “Warning: This test will not tell you if you’re infected with a virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that you’ve been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that you’re African. It will not tell you if you’re going to live or die; in fact, we really don’t know what testing positive, or negative, means at all.”----- The Hidden Face of HIV – Part 1 By Liam Scheff

I'm absolutely sure that no antibody test in medicine has any absolute meaning. Especially in HIV antibody testing, it is clear that the antibodies that are detected in the test are present in everybody. Some people have them in higher concentrations, and some in lower concentrations, but only when you reach a very high level of antibodies -- much higher than in any other antibody testing -- are you considered to be "positive." This is a contradiction in terms because in other antibody tests, the lower your level of antibodies, the higher your risk for a symptomatic infection. But with HIV they say you are "positive" only when you have reached a very high level of antibodies. Below this level, you are said to be negative. [1995] INTERVIEW STEFAN LANKA

Neither of the "HIV-antibody" tests -- the Elisa or the Western Blot -- has ever been properly validated, which means that no one knows what their results mean. The tests are chemical reactions to antigens, which are substances that provoke an immune response. Many dozens of conditions can produce a positive result on these tests, including drug abuse, flu vaccinations, past infection with malaria, pregnancy, and liver disease. Nevertheless, physicians still use these worthless tests, assume that positive results mean HIV infection, and give their patients doom-diagnoses of "HIV-positive" or "AIDS". 'AIDS: A Death Cult' by John Lauritsen

Mammography [See: Mammography]
Professor Samuel Epstein, MD, professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition has tirelessly drawn attention to the radiation risks of screening mammography, has pointed out that sobering fact that over a period of 10 years, a pre-menopausal woman undergoing annual mammograms receives almost half the dose of radiation that was measurable within a mile of the Hiroshima bomb epicenter.----Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

You need to screen 1,900 women in their 40s for 10 years in order to prevent one death from breast cancer, and in the process you will have generated more than 1,000 false-positive screens and all the overtreatment they entail. This doesn’t make sense.---Robert Aronowitz, an internist and a professor of the history and sociology of science at the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of “Unnatural History: Breast Cancer and American Society.”

"The latest evidence shifts the balance towards harm and away from benefits," said Dr. Michael Baum of University College in London. [Newstarget Feb 2007] Mammograms offer no health benefits whatsoever, doctors conclude

[2009 Nov] Risks of Mammography: Hidden Role of the American Cancer Society Five radiologists have served as presidents of the American Cancer Society (ACS). In its every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. This bias hypes mammography, which Dr. Epstein and Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D. of the International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine emphasize is an avoidable cause of breast cancer.
"The mammography industry conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on its advisory boards, and donates considerable funds," they warn. "DuPont also is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; sponsors television shows and other media productions touting ACS literature for hospitals, clinics, medical organization, and doctors; produces educational films; and aggressively lobbies Congress for legislation promoting the nationwide availability of mammography services."
In virtually all its actions, the ACS has been and remains strongly linked with the mammography industry. Meanwhile, it ignores or attacks breast self examination (BSE), following training by expert nurses or clinicians, which is the safe and effective alternative, say Drs. Epstein and Bertell.

"Mammography simply joins the long list of therapies and procedures where desire for profits and lowering of world population levels have superseded the welfare of our citizens."---Dr. James Howenstine, MD.

Mammography is a fraud. The scientific literature clearly says that what we are recommending is over-exaggerated. The Jan. 8, 2000 issue of The Lancet carried an article stating that mammography is unjustifiable. Actually, of the eight studies done, six of them show that it doesn't work--and yet the American public believes that this is a time honored, definite way of saving their lives from breast cancer. Interview with John McDougall, M.D.

The medical profession is implicated directly. I've spoken to Andre Bruewer, who practices in Tucson. He's a first-class radiologist who does nothing but mammography. And he said, "John, I shudder to think of what we were doing 20 years ago." We were touting mammography when the dose was four to five rads, and in some cases 10 rads. Now if you give enough women four to five rads, at something of the order of a 2 percent increase in breast-cancer rate per rad -- that's what my analyses show, and I've analyzed the world data on x-rays very carefully with respect to breast cancer in particular -- it has to be that women irradiated 15, 20 years ago got horrendous doses from mammography compared to now. And therefore, some of the present increase in breast cancer has to be from the radiation they got; but they don't like to talk about it. [1994] Interview: Dr John Gofman

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. The Depths of Deceit Mammography by Barry Lynes

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."
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." The Depths of Deceit Mammography by Barry Lynes

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. 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
The widespread acceptance of screening has lead to overdiagnosis of pre-invasive cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ), sometimes radically treated by mastectomy and radiation, and even chemotherapy. Mammography Is Dangerous Besides Ineffective, Warns Samuel S Epstein, M.D.

A recent study of 663 cancerous women published in the Archives of Surgery reveals that those subjects whose cancerous breast tumors were needle biopsied - in other words, intentionally ruptured for diagnostic purposes - were 50% more likely to subsequently develop cancer of the lymphatic nodes located under the armpit than women whose tumors were removed outright (also not something I'd always recommend, but that's another story). For those in the back row (or those with their fingers in their ears, like mammographers), I'll shout: That's TWICE AS LIKELY to develop lymphatic cancer after disruption of the cancerous tumor. Mammograms by Dr Campbell

Mammography simply joins the long list of therapies and procedures where desire for profits and lowering of world population levels have superceded the welfare of our citizens. DO MAMMOGRAMS CAUSE BREAST CANCER? By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.

Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation. ----The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance. ---Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23

"The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer. ----Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment. ---The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537

No less questionable-or controversial-has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized. -----The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23

The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected. ----The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291

A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests - which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women. ----Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21

Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk-mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue. ----Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers. ---The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540

Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent. ----The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104

Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer. ----Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132

The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning. ----The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544

High Rate of False Positives-mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72 ----Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

"Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women." ---Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%." ---Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467

Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings. ---Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms. ---Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42

Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it. ---The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305

Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% - and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography! ----Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123

As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976). ---The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography. ---Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film. ---The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy). ---Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47

In 1993-seventeen years after the first pilot study-the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects-women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on-who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts. ---Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12

One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from ---The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57

One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53 ----When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233

Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers. ---The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival. ---Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50. ---The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53

Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected. ---The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234

For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities. ---Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587

PSA Test [See: PSA test]
"There is no proof that the use of the PSA blood test to screen symptom-free men will spare anyone a prostate cancer death, yet it is associated with a considerable amount of unnecessary treatment with after effects that can be both severe and permanent. All of the treatments for early prostate cancer carry the risk of impotence and incontinence. In short, cancer researchers do not know whether PSA screening saves more lives than it ruins....close to 40% of men who undergo a radical prostatectomy will have a PSA relapse within two years. This means that they had disease that was outside of the prostate that was not obvious to the surgeon or the pathologist. It means that if the man lives long enough, metastatic disease will kill him....the more aggressive cancers are less likely to benefit from screening......It bothered me, though, that my P.R. and money people could tell me how much money we would make off screening, but nobody could tell me if we could save one life. As a matter of fact, we could have estimated how many men we would render impotent..." ---[2003] PSA Screening Test for Prostate Cancer: An Interview with Otis Brawley, MD By Maryann Napoli

"Researchers say men put at risk of impotence. Thousands of men may have unnecessarily undergone an invasive operation to remove their prostate, sometimes suffering impotence and incontinence as a result, because of a screening test which was yesterday written off as all but useless."--- [Media Sept 2004] Prostate test 'all but useless'

Thousands of men may have unnecessarily undergone an invasive operation to remove their prostate, sometimes suffering impotence and incontinence as a result, because of a screening test which was yesterday written off as all but useless. [Media Sept 2004] Prostate test 'all but useless'

Scans

Many of Davis's findings simply stunned me. Consider the invasion of computerized imaging technology (CT scans) in modern medicine. Since its invention in the 1970s, CT scanning has become a $100-billion industry that creates nifty three-dimensional images, yet exposes patients to radiation. CT scans have become such a favoured technology that one in every three scans recommended for children is probably unnecessary.
In the last 25 years, the amount of radiation zapping North Americans from scanning and the like has increased fivefold. Now ponder this stunner: "Modern America's annual exposure to radiation from diagnostic machines is equal to that released by a nuclear accident that spewed the equivalent of hundreds of Hiroshimas across much of Russia and Eastern Europe." Most physicians don't know that a typical CT scan equals 400 chest X-rays. A group of researchers at Yale now estimate that radiation from CT scans of the head and abdomen will kill 2,500 people a year. The Secret History of the War on Cancer