untitled

think they are. For one thing, mammograms are of very limited effectiveness because they seem only to
be able to detect tumors of a size that is large enough to signify a rather advanced stage of cancer.
What is most disturbing about this diagnostic method is the excessive compression of the breast that
is required during a routine mammogram. To produce good pictures and to avoid being sued for missing a
tumor, the technician squeezes the breast extra hard. Squeezing can rupture internal tissue, including
tumor tissue. If there is a tumor in the breast, performing a mammogram can actually break apart
cancerous cell masses, spill the deadly poisons they contain and cause the disease to develop in other
organs. New research shows that small tumors are especially prone to such potentially fatal damage.
Forcible flattening of a breast during a mammogram cannot be considered an acceptable risk,
especially when the test is so ineffective anyway. A large body of research suggests that mammograms
may be only marginally more effective (if at all) than physical exams in detecting breast cancer. So why
use a method that can exacerbate a disease unnecessarily? Mammography is a major-league moneymaker
for hospitals, doctors and cancer clinics nationwide. The unsuspecting women believe that the screening
reduces their risk of death from breast cancer by 50-75 percent! In truth, according to research conducted
by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, it would be necessary to screen over 1,200 women aged 40-
74 every year for 14 years to prevent even one death from breast cancer.
Fortunately for women, the massive increase in lawsuits as a result of missed tumors is contributing to
an increasing reluctance among doctors and clinics that once offered mammography to continue doing so.
A 1997 report by the American National Cancer Institute stated that mammograms showed no
mortality benefit unless women in their 40s had been followed for 10 years. Other studies have shown that
women who have mammograms suffer about the same rates of death due to breast cancer as women who
do not have mammograms. Despite the fact that over 90 percent of the abnormalities discovered by
mammography have been benign (not cancerous), 63 percent of U.S. women in their 40s keep having a
mammogram every one or two years. This poses a great risk on healthy women who wish to prevent
developing breast cancer in the future. Given the powerful cancer-inducing effects of mammograms, there
is little if any benefit having a yearly mammogram.
Prevention of breast cancer does not begin with having a mammogram; it starts with taking active
responsibility for one’s body and mind. It can be said that most natural foods have a cancer preventive
effect, and this includes food. Commenting on a recently released study on the prevention of cancer, John
Pezzuto, leader of a food research group at the University of Illinois in Chicago, U.S.A, said, “...the study
does show that a diet loaded with fruits and vegetables is a good defense against cancer.” Research has
identified a substance in grapes called resveratol that keeps cells from turning cancerous and inhibits the
spread of cells that are malignant already. Most other natural foods contain similar or even more powerful
cancer-fighting substances.
Women don’t need to rely on mammography to feel safeguarded against breast cancer, especially since
it is highly unreliable as a diagnostic tool. A series of liver, kidney and colon cleanses are often enough to
prevent, stop and regress any type of cancer.
Hair dyes (highlights are okay), make-up (women who use make-up on a daily basis can absorb up to 5
pounds of chemicals into their bodies each year, many of them carcinogens), deodorants, toothpaste,
commercial synthetic shampoos, moisturizing creams, hand lotion and other such substances, all release
large amounts of chemical toxins into the lymph ducts of the breasts, causing lymphatic congestion and
high levels of toxicity there.