EARLY DETECTION, EARLY DEATH: Mammograms linked to 84% higher breast cancer death rate
By ethanh // 2023-12-05
Copy
 
New research published in JAMA Oncology reveals that mammography is responsible for an astounding 84 percent higher rate of breast cancer deaths over a 20-year surveillance period. Because of the very high rate of false positives they produce, mammograms end up killing, it would seem, many more women than would otherwise die from breast cancer had they never participated in the mammography racket. Mammograms produce trauma in patients, both physically in breast tissue and also psychologically, emotionally and even spiritually in women who end up being told that they must undergo even more invasive "treatments" in order to survive. The pressure that mammography puts on breast tissue can be a cause of cancer in and of itself, not to mention all the chemotherapy, radiation and surgery that typically ensues. It is a horrifically traumatic experience for women that leaves many of them scarred for life, assuming they even survive. (Related: Back in 2016, some surgeons published a study showing that mammography is neither safe nor effective, and that women should opt out of participating in the "outdated" practice.)

Cancer is a for-profit industry

Mammography is also dangerous in that the primary modality utilized is x-ray technology, which radiates breast tissue on top of the machine physically pressing it down. The gamma rays alone are a known breast carcinogen that is especially concerning for women with so-called BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene "mutations." The official recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Guidelines pushes women to start getting screened through mammography every other year starting at age 40. "These guidelines put millions more healthy women at risk of radiation-induced adverse breast changes, as well as the psychobiological harms addressed in this article," contends Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo. Pretty much across the board, the medical establishment tries to pretend as though mammography is risk-free, ignoring many known risks such as x-ray radiation exposure, false positive diagnoses, overdiagnosis, and of course all the invasive "treatments" that follow. About a decade ago, it was determined that more than 1.3 million women have had their breast tissue wrongly removed due to a non-cancerous condition called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which is now recognized as being benign. For too long, though, DCIS was treated like cancer and many women underwent mastectomies for it for no good reason. "Overdiagnosis can be distinguished from false positives in that in overdiagnosis screen-detected abnormalities are observed in asymptomatic and ostensibly healthy women which would not cause harm if left undetected, or would cause more net harm to be diagnosed and treated than if left undiscovered or left to progress untreated (so-called 'watchful waiting.')," Ji further writes. "False positives, on the other hand, occur when there is a positive screening mammography assessment that leads to more diagnostic work-up but no diagnosis of breast cancer. While false positives are ultimately discovered as such, the damage may already be done, given the power of the subconscious mind and the so-called nocebo effect, which is the opposite of the placebo effect, to do profound emotional and bodily harm to those who think they have a life-threatening diagnosis of cancer but are not actually sick." In the United States, roughly 11 percent of women receive a false-positive result from just one single mammography screening. In Europe, that figure is much lower at just 2.5 percent, but still corresponds to a much larger cumulative risk in that after just 10 screenings, roughly 20 percent of women in Europe will receive at least one false-positive result. Breast cancer remains one of the most feared and commonly diagnosed diseases. Every year in the U.S. alone, some 240,000 new cases are reported, along with 42,000 deaths annually. More related news coverage about the cancer industry can be found at CancerScams.com. Sources for this article include: JamaNetwork.com GreenMedInfo.com NaturalNews.com
Copy