by Steven Ransom
“Women who are concerned about breast
cancer need facts, not myths, to make their
own decisions.” — Irwin D Bross
A report from the American College of Preventative Medicine estimates that 185,000 women a year are diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States.1And the Royal Marsden Hospital 2002 webpage on breast cancer reported that 28,000 women in the UK are diagnosed with this disease annually.
Before looking at the practice of mammography in more detail, let’s look at the practice of qualifying those statistics presented to us. There are more than enough doubts surrounding conventional cancer practice and especially diagnosis for us to pause a while and examine this area more carefully.
While it may be correct that 185,000 women in the United States and 28,000 women per annum in the UK are diagnosed as having breast cancer, how many of those breast cancer diagnoses are correct? And how dangerous is breast cancer anyway? Before coming to any premature conclusions as to the irresponsible-sounding nature of such a question, the following information on breast cancer is presented for the reader.
In a paper entitled “Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography; Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective and Practical Alternative”,the authors state that the widespread and virtually unchallenged acceptance of screening has resulted in a dramatic increase in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS), a pre-invasive cancer, with a current, estimated incidence of about 40,000 US citizens annually. DCIS is generally treated by lumpectomy plus radiation or even mastectomy and chemotherapy. However, some 80 percent of all DCIS cancers never become invasive, even if left untreated.2
A report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, entitled “Over-diagnosis:an under-recognised cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening”, stated that mammography can detect cancers that often don’t progress.3
The one scientific fact you need to know
This next report is from PhD researcher, Irwin D Bross, who was formerly Director of Bio-Statistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo NY, (Roswell Park Memorial Cancer Hospital). He wrote his thesis on breast cancer after spending some time researching the nature and outcome of the disease. Entitled “How to stop worrying about breast cancer; the one scientific fact you need to know”, the main elements of his report have been reproduced below:
“What most women have is a tumour which, under a light microscope, looks like a cancer to a pathologist. Chances are, this tumour lacks the ability to metastasise — to spread throughout the body — which is the hallmark of a genuine cancer.
The world’s first controlled clinical trial of adjuvant therapies for breast cancer was centralised in my department. This study produced the first important advance in the treatment of breast cancer in 50 years. It has changed the treatment of breast cancer worldwide. Unfortunately, these changes were not always for the better.
More than half of the patients diagnosed as early breast cancer had tumours that seemed to have little ability to metastasise — that were more like benign lesions rather than cancers.
Our discovery was highly unpopular with the medical profession. Doctors could never afford to admit the scientific truth because the standard treatment in those days was radical mastectomy. Admitting the truth could lead to malpractice suits by women who had lost a breast because of an incorrect medical diagnosis. The furious doctors at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) punished us for our discovery. They took our highly successful breast cancer research program away from us; they stopped funding our mathematical research; and they eventually succeeded in suppressing our findings and blocking new publications.
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported amazingly high survival rates in a Swedish study of untreated early prostate cancer, which showed 7 out of 8 of the tumours were not cancers and did not turn into cancers.4 There is no reason for women to panic when they hear ‘cancer’. Panic makes them easy victims.
There is an easy way to give California women access to the truth about breast cancer. The state of California should stop wasting $14 million a year on ‘cancer research’ that is useless to women, and instead spend this money on California libraries. Women should be able to go to a special alcove in any public library and get Internet access to the truth about breast cancer from grassroots breast cancer activists. Women who are concerned about breast cancer need facts, not myths, to make their own decisions.
Women should not have to depend solely on misinformation provided by persons who are in clear conflict-of-interest, such as doctors who promote the high-tech treatments for cancer and the scientists whose ‘research’ supports their fraudulent medical claims.”5
That familiar orthodox pressure again?
In the UK Times, Scottish MP Margaret Ewing was reported to be facing surgery for breast cancer, after cancer was detected during a routine screening. Said Mrs Ewing at the time:
“I am facing what thousands of other women have had to face, but I do so with great confidence in the medical team and support staff, with whom I have gone through various tests.”6
But was Mrs Ewing’s screening accurate? Were all the right questions asked? Did Mrs Ewing have all the facts to hand? Did the screening nurse point out some of the anomalies pertaining to mammography? The confidence expressed by Mrs Ewing in the conventional paradigm is a confidence that unfortunately cannot be shared by this author. Mrs Ewing duly went into hospital on the 16th April 2002 for surgery.
The relevant contrary information on mammography had been passed on to Mrs Ewing’s office by the Campaign for Truth in Medicine for her consideration, but was deemed too uncomfortable by her staff to forward on to her. One of Mrs Ewing’s aides stated that Mrs Ewing was emotionally and physically distressed, as were all the staff, and it did not seem appropriate to forward such contentious information. Sympathy is with the staff who had to make that difficult decision, but was it the right decision? Wouldn’t you want to know?
If more women knew
A report on false-positive breast cancer diagnosis was printed in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Included was the following:
“If more women knew how common false-positive results are, there might be less stress and anxiety while waiting to undergo further diagnostic tests, which sometimes take many weeks. Most importantly, greater educational initiatives focusing on the role of diet and lifestyle in breast cancer prevention would empower women to protect themselves rather than relying solely on early detection of the disease.”7
The detection of a breast ‘abnormality’ will of course be of concern whenever it is discovered. But awareness of the high number of false-positive diagnoses, coupled with qualified information as to why breast lumps aren’t necessarily dangerous, and do not automatically require immediate remedial action (despite the pressure placed upon women to do otherwise), will hopefully lessen the high level of alarm surrounding this issue.
Concerning the mammogram itself, very little information is offered at patient level concerning the dangers associated with this practice. What about the radiation risks? This condensed report on mammography is brought to us by Dr Joseph Mercola:
“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 pre-menopausal 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’.
Missed cancers are common in premenopausal women owing to their dense breasts, and also in postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy.
The dangers and unreliability of screening are compounded by its growing and inflationary costs. Screening all pre-menopausal women would cost $2.5 billion annually, about 14% of estimated Medicare spending on prescription drugs.”
Dr Mercola states that monthly breast self-examination (BSE), following brief training, coupled with annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained healthcare professional, is at least as effective as mammography in detecting early tumours, and also safe. Dr Mercola also calls for national networks of BSE and CBE clinics to be established, staffed by trained nurses, to replace screening mammography. Apart from their minimal costs, such clinics would also empower women and free them from increasing dependence on industrialised medicine and its complicit medical institutions.8
It might also help to free women from the constant disinformation, posing as breast cancer statistics.
The Danish study, to which Mercola was referring, was prompted by a 1999 Swedish study that showed no decrease in cancer deaths from screening, even though mammography has been recommended there since 1985. Asian countries, which still adhere to traditional dishes of rice and vegetables with low meat and dairy intakes, still have far lower rates of breast cancer than those in the West. The report also stated that alcohol and ‘hormone replacement’ treatments increased risk, while exercise and plant-based diets appeared to reduce it.9
Dr Tim O’Shea highlights the following information on the dangers of mammography:
“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.”10
Dr Bross has more funding cut
In the 1970’s, Dr Irwin Bross led an important project studying the alarming increase in rates of leukaemia. The Tri-State Leukaemia Survey, as it was called, used the tumour registries in New York, Maryland and Minnesota to follow 16 million people. Dr Bross looked at many factors, including family background, cause of death for parents and grandparents, the person’s own health history, complete occupational history and residential history, etc. After four years of work, Dr Bross concluded that “…the main cause of the rising rates of leukaemia was medical radiation in the form of diagnostic medical x-rays.”11
Dr Bross published his results in the American Journal of Public Health. Immediately, the National Cancer Institute cut off his funding.
Mammography is a fraud
Dr John McDougall 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 women receive. Fear and incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade women to get routine mammograms. Says Dr McDougall:
“I went into medicine with the idea that I was going to save all of these lives with all the tricks and tools that medical doctors learned. And what I found was that very few of my patients got well. I often did harm to them. This was quite disturbing to me as a young doctor. What was even more disturbing was to find out that this failure had been fairly well documented in the scientific literature, but it doesn’t fit anybody’s advertising campaign.
Science says one thing and the public believes another because the public relations machine benefits the economics of the drug and medical industries. Mammography is a fraud. The 8th January 2000 issue of the Lancet carried an article stating that mammography is unjustifiable. Of the eight studies done, six of them show that mammography doesn’t work, and yet the American public believes this is a time-honoured, definite way of saving their lives from breast cancer.” 12
Cancer risks from breast compression
As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle cancerous breasts with care, for fear of accidentally disseminating cells and spreading cancer.13 Even so, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in pre-menopausal women. This may lead to a spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in, or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers.14 Mammograms do not prevent breast cancer. Dr Tim O’Shea warns that harmless breast cancers can be made active by the compressive force of routine mammography.15
No benefit above self-examination
Extensive studies of breast cancer histories 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, “thebenefit achieved is marginal and the harm caused is substantial.”16
The harm to which they are referring includes the constant worrying and emotional distress as well as the tendency for unnecessary procedures and testing to be done based on results which can have a false-positive rate as high as 50%.17
A seven-year study of 90,000 women by Professor Anthony Miller of Toronto University has shown that mammography had no impact on women aged between 40 – 49, and for women over 50, it has shown no benefit over and above what is detected by annual examinations by specialists and self-examination.18
In his monumental The Politics of Cancer, internationally recognised carcinogens expert Dr Samuel Epstein warns:
“… the US National Cancer Institute is now agreed that large-scale mammography screening programs are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.”19
In Radiation and Human Health, Dr John Goffman writes:
“There will be more breast cancers induced by the procedure than there will be women saved from breast cancer death by early discovery of lesions.”20
But as Dr John McDougall has already stated, “… by the time a tumour 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’.”
Mammography and vested interests
The American Cancer Society, the world’s most wealthy, non-profit institution (it has even made political contributions21), has close connections to the mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents. The ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. The mammography industry also conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on advisory boards, and donates considerable funds.22
Pharmaceutical giant DuPont is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program. ACS sponsors television shows and other media productions promoting mammography; produces advertising, promotional, and information literature for hospitals, clinics, medical organisations, and doctors; produces educational films, and, of course, lobbies Congress for legislation promoting availability of mammography services. In virtually all its important actions, the ACS has been, and remains strongly linked with the mammography industry, while ignoring or attacking the development of viable alternatives.23
ACS promotion continues to attract women of all ages into mammography centres, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. According to the report, a leading Massachusetts newspaper featured a photograph of two women in their twenties in an ACS advertisement that promised early detection results “nearly 100 percent of the time.” An ACS communications director was questioned by journalist Kate Dempsey and admitted the following, in an article published by the Massachusetts Women’s Community journal Cancer:
“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.… Mammography today is a lucrative and highly competitive business.”24
How about a non-complicated breast-screening alternative to replace all this ‘highly competitive business’? A simple and safe program of breast self-examination is included in the appendices at the back of Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century, the book from which this article is drawn.
Those breast cancer drugs
The following BBC News item on breast cancer makes reference to the drug Tamoxifen:
Breast cancer deaths plummet: Early detection has saved lives. An unprecedented fall in the number of women dying from breast cancer has been hailed by scientists. A drug, Tamoxifen, developed in the UK, appears mainly responsible for almost a 30% drop in deaths in the UK over the last decade, reported the Lancet medical journal. It is the most sudden drop in mortality for a common cancer seen anywhere in the world. 25
That well-worn mantra, “early detection saves lives”,is now seen in its proper context. No doubt, “plummet” will be replaced next week in an article headed “Soar”. More worryingly though, the BBC report failed to point out to its readers that Tamoxifen is a human carcinogen.
First, the glossy, promotional stuff
Tamoxifen (other names include Nolvadex, Tamofen and Noltam) is an anti-estrogen drug manufactured by Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals and is prescribed to many women with breast cancer, according to the theory that the presence or absence of estrogen and progesterone can alter the growth rate of breast cancers. Conventional theory postulates that many breast cancers are hormone-related, that is, they rely on drawing upon supplies of sex hormones to grow, particularly estrogen. On the surface of the cancer cells there are proteins called receptors.
Cancers with estrogen receptors are known as ‘estrogen receptor positive’ (ER positive) and are said to respond well to Tamoxifen. In these cases, the cancer is said to be hormone-dependent. Scientists believe that Tamoxifen can work to block the estrogen receptors that stimulate cancer cell growth.
Tamoxifen is usually prescribed after surgery as a defence against the cancer returning (adjuvant therapy). It is currently prescribed for between 2 and 5 years in duration as a single daily dose of around 20 mg and, according to Cancer Information Support International:
“It is also used in women before the menopause, but this group of women more often have chemotherapy. In both groups it can help to control and even shrink the cancer, sometimes for long periods of time.”26
And now, the research that really matters
Nowhere is it mentioned in any of the Tamoxifen promos that the World Health Organisation formally designated Tamoxifen and estrogen therapy as human carcinogens back in 1996, grouping these treatments with around 70 other chemicals — about one quarter of them pharmaceuticals.27 In response to WHO’s announcement, the National Cancer Institute and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals lobbied California regulators to keep them from adding Tamoxifen to their list of carcinogens. As Duncan Roades, editor of Nexus magazine stated:
“Here is open evidence of a government agency, chartered to find a cure for cancer, flagrantly colluding with a drug company to keep a known carcinogen on the market and keep the public from learning of its dangers.… This should have been a controversy of high order; instead it was barely reported in the press and few heard about it.”28
One disease for another
Thanks to Dr Zoltan Rona for the following information on Tamoxifen:
The long-term safety of Tamoxifen use in healthy women has never been established. Many of Tamoxifen’s side-effects are relatively benign and include hot flushes, nausea, weight gain and menstrual irregularities. Less than 20% of women taking Tamoxifen experience serious side-effects but these can be lethal or permanent.
In particular, Tamoxifen can cause uterine cancer. Cancers of the liver, ovaries and gastrointestinal tract have also been reported. A study at Johns Hopkins by Yager and Shi found that Tamoxifen is a promoter of liver cancer. When WHO announced Tamoxifen as a known carcinogen in 1996, the NCI study on this drug was abruptly curtailed, but not before 33 women taking Tamoxifen at that time developed endometrial cancer.29
Tamoxifen can also cause many hormonal imbalances and toxicities, including the development of blood clots, osteoporosis and visual disturbances caused by corneal changes, optic nerve damage, cataracts and retinopathy (retinal damage). None of these may be reversible on discontinuing the drug. In the NCI study, 17 women who took Tamoxifen suffered blood clots in the lungs and 130 developed deep-vein thrombosis (blood clots in major blood vessels). In pre-menopausal women, Tamoxifen causes bone loss of 1.7% annually.
Side-effects such as confusion, depression, memory loss and fatigue have also been reported. Georgia Wiesner, the medical director at the Centre for Human Genetics at University Hospitals, Cleveland, said of Tamoxifen:
“You need to be clear about what the risks are so you’re not trading one disease for another.” 30
It seems almost unbelievable that this drug is being prescribed today. Alongside Tamoxifen and other toxic ‘medicines’ manufactured by Zeneca, this company also makes herbicides and fungicides. Acetochlor, one of Zeneca’s organochlorine pesticides, has been implicated as a causal factor in breast cancer and its Perry, Ohio chemical plant (the third largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the US) emitted 53,000 pounds of recognised carcinogens into the air in 1996.31
Herceptin (Trastuzumab) is a breast cancer chemotherapy drug, introduced by Genentech Pharmaceuticals in 1998. It is given to women with breast cancer that has metastasised (spread) to other areas of the body. A blood test has told them they have a protein in their system called HER2. It is said that Herceptin binds to cancer cells that express HER2 and slows the growth or spread of tumours. A breast cancer website sponsored by Siemens (major manufacturers of oncological and other radiography imaging devices) states:
“Many experts believe that Herceptin represents the future direction of breast cancer drugs in that it targets a particular protein of the cancer cell and prevents it from carrying out its action, similar to the new leukemia drug, Gleevec. Herceptin is given intravenously (through the vein) in an outpatient clinical setting.”
But this is in direct contrast to the international warning issued by Genentech in May 2000, reporting that Herceptin had been linked to 15 deaths and 47 other adverse reactions in patients.
Breast cancer drug blamed for deaths: Genentech Inc. mailed a letter to doctors Thursday warning that the breast cancer drug Herceptin has been linked to 15 deaths and 47 other adverse reactions in patients. In nine of the 15 deaths, symptoms arose within 24 hours after Herceptin was administered, according to the letter. Genentech is working with the FDA to have the drug’s label amended to reflect the new risks.32
What could possibly be put on the label? ‘Warning. Can cause symptoms leading to death within 24 hours’?
Death by doctoring
Putting paid to the idea that Herceptin is the way forward is the sad story of 26-year-old Tammy Starks, being treated with Herceptin after her breast cancer had spread. This from the US daily paper, The Kansan:
“One doctor told her she wouldn’t live long. She underwent a complete bone marrow transplant in 1998, though it failed and the cancer remained. Then there was a ray of hope. A new doctor knew of a drug about to hit the market to help in her battle against the aggressive form of breast cancer. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug Herceptin, which has been shown to kill cancer cells in some women in the advanced stages of cancer….
For Tammy, the combination of Herceptin and chemotherapy worked, getting rid of the tumours in her breast, liver and lymph nodes. But six months ago, Starks’ life took another turn. The breast cancer returned, this time metastasising to her brain, where she now has nine small tumours. “They can’t do surgery,” she said, adding that typically doctors will only perform surgery when there are three or less tumours. Starks, who has lost some sight in her right eye from the tumours, still receives the Herceptin once a week, though she said it has not been found to be very successful on breast cancer that has spread to the brain. She takes several chemotherapy pills every day for two weeks before she has a week off the treatment. And then there are the daily doses of pain medications and pills to prevent seizures and blood clots. Until a successful treatment is found, she and her husband Brian of seven years, and their children, Kendra, 6, and Kyle, 3, try to live a normal family life.” 33
Needless to say, readers are strongly advised to research the side-effects of all chemotherapy/hormonal drugs prescribed to them for their particular condition.
Cancer Awareness Month
Breast Cancer Awareness Month in the US (and the pink ribbon campaigns here in the UK), are designed to raise public awareness of breast cancer. BCAM is held in October and is sponsored primarily by Zeneca, (a former subsidiary of Industry giant ICI), along with the American Academy of Family Physicians and Cancer Care Inc. National Breast Cancer Awareness Month is now governed by a board consisting of 17 organisations, including the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Cancer Institute.
As we have read in this and preceding chapters, public awareness of the true nature of conventional cancer care is not widespread by any means. Why can’t there be a clause somewhere in Breast Cancer Awareness Month that draws attention to the fact that the whole industry is male and money-oriented? The following extract is taken from the British Medical Journal “Selling Sickness” debate:
“In some countries,women are invited for mammography in a letter in which the dateand time of the appointment have already been fixed. This putspressure on these women, who must actively decline the invitationif they don’t want to be screened. Sometimes, women are askedto give reasons for not attending appointments, as if it werea civic duty. In leaflets, women get simple messages — that cancerdetected early can be cured, and early cancers can often be treatedwith breast-conserving surgery.
The data tell another story: noreliable evidence shows that breast screening saves lives; breastscreening leads to more surgery, including more mastectomies;and estimates show that more than a tenth of healthy women whoattend a breast screening program experience considerable psychologicaldistress for many months.”3
An unnecessary climate of fear
Writing in praise of the ‘discoverers’ of the supposed breast cancer gene BRCA, Dr Miryam Wahrman does acknowledge one or two drawbacks in the gene-predictive process:
“A significant dilemma which exists in regard to the BRCA genes is that the decisions to be made are not clear-cut. Inheriting either of the mutant BRCA genes may increase the likelihood of contracting cancer significantly, but not to 100%. So women must grapple with whether to undergo major surgery, or to watch and wait.”35
Watch and wait?
Nothing short of criminal
With the advent of genetic predictors for cancer, the authority figure in the cancer equation – the oncologist — has now been given permission to pronounce a psychological, pharmaceutical and surgical curse upon healthy and unsuspecting patients. That so unsound and theoretical a knowledge-base is gaining such stature in society today is nothing short of criminal.We are mereguinea pigs. Women in particular are being herded from pillar to post and trustingly receiving diagnoses and treatments that are not only causing serious psychological and physical harm, but also a great deal of unnecessary death.
In surveying the conventional breast cancer scene, in fact, in surveying the conventional cancer scene in general, one can only conclude that death by doctoring is alive and well in the 21st century. This author makes no apologies for the picture that has emerged with regard to conventional cancer treatment and ‘care’. On the brink of the American Civil War, it was Patrick Henry who poignantly stated:
“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and provide for it.”
Were there only one side to this cancer story, then it would be a depressing read indeed. As we shall soon discover though, there is some very good news indeed on cancer in the 21st century. And fortunately, it doesn’t depend on the mighty orthodoxy to deliver it! With regard to breast cancer in general, for those women facing this disease or who are worried about the prospect, the following heartening advice is offered by Dr Joseph Mercola:
Women can make a difference in eliminating breast cancer: The breast cancer epidemic is not some great mystery. The causes of cancer are already known. Toxic diets, toxic lifestyles, toxic environments, toxic drug treatments and toxic, diagnostic techniques cause cancer. Corporations are only interested in increasing their profits and ensuring their tentacles of control, not in actual solutions. When it comes to Breast Cancer Awareness Month, women must invest their time and money into other projects, initiatives and treatments that will truly create change. Some of the most immediate steps women can take towards creating a preventative program include:
- Eating as many organic foods as possible – they are not only free of harmful chemicals but also have much greater nutritional value;
- Eliminating all commercial household cleaning products and toxic garden pesticides – replacing with safe, organic and bio-degradable brands;
- Drinking pure, filtered water;
- Refuse steroid hormone treatments such as HRT and the Pill — these are known to initiate and promote breast cancer;
- Seek out the many natural approaches to regain hormonal balance;
- Detoxify the body and reduce stress;
- Investigate safe screening techniques such as thermography, especially if you are pre-menopausal.
Breast Cancer Awareness Month is indeed a powerful time to educate, awaken and empower women to the real causes, preventative measures and truly effective cures for breast cancer. But, let’s not be duped or compromised in the process.36
* * * * *
Excerpted from Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom
Copyright © Steven Ransom 2004
Cancer: Why We’re Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day
Healing Cancer From Inside Out DVD by Mike Anderson
1 “Screening for Cancer”: www.acpm.org/breast.htm
2 Baum, M, “Epidemiology versus scare-mongering: The case for humane interpretation of statistics and breast cancer”, Breast J. 6(5): 331-334, 2000
3 Black, W C, “Overdiagnosis: An under-recognised cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening”, Journal of The National Cancer Institute, 92(16): 1280–1282, 2000
4 Journal of the American Medical Association, 22nd April 1992
5 Bross, Irwin D, “How to stop worrying about breast cancer; the one scientific fact you need to know”:
6 The Times, 13th April 2002
7 CF Christiansen, L Wang, MB Barton et al, “Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms”, Journal of The National Cancer Institute, 92:1657–66, 2000
8 “More on the Dangers of Mammography”, 23rd February 2002:
9 Gotzsche, P C, “Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?” Lancet, 8th January 2000: www.cancerproject.org/nyn/breast.html
10 O’Shea, Tim, “To the Cancer Patient”, www.thedoctorwithin.com
11 Robbins, John, Reclaiming our Health… op. cit.
12 An Interview with Dr John McDougall: www.shareguide.com/McDougall.html
13 Quigley, D T, “Some neglected points in the pathology of breast cancer, and treatment of breast cancer”, Radiology, May 1928
14 Watmough, D J, “X-ray mammography and breast compression”, Lancet 340: 122, 1992
15 O’Shea, Tim, op. cit.
16 Lancet, 1st July 1995
17 New York Times, 14th December 1997; also O’Shea, Tim, op. cit.
18 “Ideas”, CBC, 1st February 1996
19 Epstein, Samuel S, The Politics of Cancer, Doubleday, 1979
20 Epstein, Samuel S, Bertell, Rosalie & Barbara Seaman, “Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography; Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective and Practical Alternative”: www.iicph.org/docs/dangers_of_mammography.htm; See also “Health Concerns Related to Radiation Exposure of the Female Nuclear Medicine Patient”: http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1997/Suppl-6/stabin.html
22 Epstein, Samuel S, Bertell, Rosalie & Barbara Seaman, op. cit.
25 BBC News, “Breast Cancer Deaths Plummet”:
26 “What is Tamoxifen?” www.cancer-info.com/tamoxifen.htm
27 US Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service
National Toxicology Program: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc9.html
28 Sellman, Sherrill, “Tamoxifen – A Major Medical Mistake?”
29 Rona, Zoltan P, “The Trouble With Tamoxifen”, Health Link:
31 Batt, Sharon, “Cancer, Inc.”, Sierra magazine, September-October 1999
32 “Breast cancer drug blamed for deaths”, USA Today, 5th May 2000
33Full story at http://thekansan.com/stories/060800/fro_0608000010.html
34 Moynihan, Ray, Heath, Iona & David Henry, “Selling Sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease-mongering”, British Medical Journal Online, BMJ, 13th April 2002
35 Wahrman, Miryam Z, “The Breast Cancer Genes”:
36 Mercola, Joseph, “Breast Cancer Awareness Month”: