- In the U.K., one fifth to one half of all x-rays given to patients are without real necessity. In the U.S.,
the FDA reports that a third of all radiation is unnecessary. - In the U.K., x-rays ordered by doctors account for over 90 percent of the total radiation exposure of
the population (Cambridge University Press, 1993). - In Canada, almost everyone gets an annual x-ray of one sort or another.
- Old X-ray equipment still used in many hospitals gives off 20 to 30 times as high a dose of radiation
as is necessary for diagnostic purposes.
Unless it is for an emergency situation, x-rays should be avoided because their harmful side effects
may pose a greater health risk than does the original problem. As a patient you have the right to refuse x-
ray diagnosis. By discussing your specific health problem with your physician, you can find out whether
exposure to x-rays is really necessary or not. Many physicians today share this concern with their patients
and try to find other ways to determine their exact condition. [To reduce radiation poisoning, see Chapter
7s section on metal tooth fillings and uses of magnetic clay.]
Mammography—Yes Or No?
A recent study showed that mammography—a diagnostic tool that uses x-rays to detect breast cancer
in women—is highly inaccurate. Only 1 to 10 out of 100 “positive” mammography tests are truly
positive, which means that there is a 90 to 99 percent chance of a woman being diagnosed with breast
cancer who doesn’t have it. Since these tests are not taken only once in a lifetime, the chances of
becoming a victim of false diagnosis for breast cancer are very high.
In Great Britain, about 100,000 women per year receive a false diagnosis for breast cancer (not
excluding other forms of diagnosis). The women undergo many unnecessary biopsies and an unknown
number of mastectomies (breast amputations). Many of the women suffer unnecessarily from depression,
desperation, and fear of dying as a result of the diagnosis. In the United States, mastectomies have
skyrocketed since mammography became the most popular “preventive” method for diagnosing breast
cancer.
The medical establishment is very nervous that the truth about the mammogram technology is finally
beginning to surface. After all, it is a huge moneymaker. Peter Gotzsche, M.D.—a researcher at the
Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark—and his associates recently published a peer-reviewed study that
found major fault with the results of a large trial that reported a 31 percent reduction in breast cancer
mortality as a result of mammogram screening. After carefully reviewing the data, Dr. Gotzsche's team
discovered that a large number of breast cancer deaths in the original data had “somehow” been left out of
the final report. The Gotzsche study was originally published last in an online edition of the European
Journal of Cancer (EJC). Three weeks later, the study vanished from their web site. Apparently, EJC
editors removed his study because they received complaints from pro-mammogram doctors.
To suggest mammography to be a diagnostic tool for detecting pre-symptomatic stages of cancer is
deceptive and dubious. In most cases of breast cancer, it is irrelevant whether breast cancer is detected at
an early or late stage. It is rather the type of cancer and whether it tends to metastasize (“spread to,” which
in reality means, “develop in” other parts of the body as well) at an early stage, that determines the
outcome of the disease. Contrary to common belief, early detection has not shown to lower mortality rats
for these types of cancer. Also by having many mammograms performed, a woman may put herself at risk
for developing the very disease mammography is supposed to prevent, or worsen it if it is already present.
Mammograms certainly aren't the “magic bullet” for breast cancer prevention that everyone seems to