Cancer screening a hoax

Cancer screening mostly a psychological terror campaign waged against women to enrich cancer treatment clinics, warns doctor

Cancer screening

(NaturalNews) Dr. H. Gilbert Welch is the author of Less Medicine More Health, one of the most fascinating and important books on medicine I’ve read all year.

The book is extraordinary, and it’s authored by a doctor who is thoughtful and systematic in his analysis of seven false assumptions in modern medicine that enrich drug companies, hospitals and surgeons while actually harming the public.

Below, I’m citing a short section from the book that explains how the cancer industry uses psychological terror to scare women and men into unnecessary cancer treatments.

This is extremely relevant today for two reasons. First, we have the recent indictment and prosecution of Dr. Farid Fata, an oncologist from Detroit, working inside the Karmanos Cancer Center property, who used fear tactics to force thousands of innocent patients into cancer treatments they didn’t need. Dr. Fata is now serving 45 years in federal prison.

Secondly, a colleague of Dr. Fata, a “science” info-terrorist who operated under a false pseudonym for several years but has now been exposed as Dr. David Gorski, is still practicing as a cancer surgeon with Karmanos. Dr. Gorski uses fear, intimidation, deception and other similar tactics to bully both patients and critics. He epitomizes the “psychological terrorism” focus of the entire cancer industry, which uses fear as a weapon against patients. (I have already submitted a detailed list of allegations about Dr. Gorski to the Federal Bureau of Investigations.)

Everything you’re about to read below supports what I’ve already uncovered about the criminal cancer industry in my own investigations. I strongly recommend you get the book yourself and read what else he has to say. In my view, reading Dr. Welch’s book may very well save your life.

From “Less Medicine More Health: 7 Assumptions That Drive Too Much Medical Care

First, to get people interested in screening in the first place we have to get people to worry about the disease we are screening for. The phrase typically used to describe this effort is to “raise awareness.” It’s a nice euphemism — but it really doesn’t describe what needs to be done: some “dis”-ease needs to be introduced into the population. In other words, people need to be scared about dying from the disease; they need to be made to feel more vulnerable.

You may not consider that a harm, but remember health is not simply a state of physical being — it’s also a state of mind. It’s more than a little ironic for a health-care system to scare people about their health, particularly when we know that doing so can adversely affect their health.

I’m not saying we should never purposely scare people — just that we need to carefully pick and choose. Fear is an integral part of antismoking campaigns. That’s appropriate. For those who care about population health, there is nothing more important than reducing the amount of cigarette smoking. There’s not only that twenty-to-thirty-fold increase in the most common cause of cancer death in the United States (lung cancer); there’s also the doubling in the most common cause of death, period (heart disease), and the virtual certainty that smokers will develop some difficulty breathing if they live long enough. Aside from scaring people, there’s no harm to the proposed intervention: stop smoking or, more importantly, don’t start.

But fear can backfire — and breast cancer screening is the poster child for the problem. Some women have been made so terrified of the disease, that they are having healthy breasts removed. I’m not referring to Angelina Jolie’s decision to have both breasts (and ovaries) removed — she had a rare mutation that dramatically increases the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. I’m referring to women without the mutation, women at average risk for breast cancer. In the United States (and the United Kingdom), about one-quarter of women who develop breast cancer in one breast now ask for both to be removed. A few — to emphasize, a very few — will die from that decision. The thirty-day mortality rate from mastectomy is about a quarter of 1 percent. They will have been literally scared to death.

There is an enormous climate of fear, whether that’s from Breast Cancer Awareness Month or the news media the other 11 months of the year. The only thing you ever hear about breast cancer is about some woman who’s dying because she didn’t get treated in time.

That’s not me talking, that’s a breast cancer surgeon — the chief of the Breast Service at Memorial Sloane Kettering. She’s worried about scaring women too much.

It is certainly reasonable to ask the question: To what extent should the health-care system be promoting a sense of vulnerability in people who feel well?

SCREENING HARMS — FALSE ALARMS

Second, come back to how the odds are stacked against screening: many (often thousands) must be tested, to potentially benefit a few. Any harms from the testing process — false alarms, complications of diagnostic procedures, etc. — are multiplied since so many people are going through it.

Once again, breast cancer screening is the poster child for the problem. What is most certain about screening mammography in the United States is that it leads to a lot of false alarms: worrisome mammograms, and yet subsequent testing — another mammogram, an ultrasound, an MRI, and/or a biopsy — ultimately finds no cancer. For example, among 1,000 American women age fifty screened annually for a decade, how many will have at least one false alarm? Somewhere between 490 and 670. And 70 to 100 will be biopsied to prove they don’t have cancer. These data come from the mammographers themselves — the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium — and reflect radiologists with low and high false-alarm rates (25th and 75th percentiles).

A screening program that alarms half the population is outrageous. No European country would tolerate it. Whether you blame the doctors or the system or the malpractice lawyers — it’s a problem to be fixed. Reducing false alarms is the primary motivation for changing recommendations from annual to biennial screening.

I can’t really do justice to the topic of false alarms following mammography. But the affected women can. When I have a piece pointing out the limitations of mammography in the general press, I get letters like this:

I am a 66-year-old woman who has had a difficult experience with mammography over the past 20 or so years. For some reason, I have a strong tendency to develop calcifications, most of which they feel the necessity to biopsy. I dread every annual mammogram because the likelihood is very high that something will have to be checked out. So far nothing has been wrong, but I have had one open biopsy and three stereotactic biopsies. The last of those biopsies produced an incidental finding of a papilloma, which they decided to do a “lumpectomy” on because one in ten can hide cancer. The surgery did not go well; they informed me they missed the spot and would have to redo the surgery.

Two days later, they decided they had indeed operated on the right area and that there was no cancer in the papilloma. No cancer, but extreme trauma to the patient and a developing panic problem with regard to the whole issue for which I will now be seeing a psychologist.

Or e-mails like this:

I am a PhD in economics and was able to read the medical literature on the usefulness of biopsies when mammography shows the breast conditions that mine did. I concluded that it was extremely unlikely that I had cancer and, because of illness my husband was facing at the time, I wished to at least postpone the biopsy, but I could not find any support for this decision. All the doctors and nurses I talked with were almost hysterical at the idea that I would not have the biopsy, acting as though I was giving myself a death sentence. “It’s no big deal,” they said, “non-invasive.” “Nobody gets a second opinion for a biopsy.” One of the authors of the most illuminating article I’d seen actually practices in my area and so I thought I’d be able to get support from her.

But it turned out to be impossible to consult with her without making an appointment for a biopsy(I).

When I got there, it was like an assembly line. I was stripped and paper-gowned and sent to a waiting room with several other women who were ahead of me. It was obvious that the doctor was someone who had discovered the profit motive since her more-philosophical days when she’d written the article. She said, “Well, probably the best reason to go ahead with the biopsy is that you are here.” I don’t know why I succumbed at that point, maybe just exhaustion from having to take on the entire medical profession single-handed.

The procedure did not go well; the granules she was looking for were so small that she couldn’t find them on the first or second pass. And sticking a 1/2″ needle through my breast seemed pretty “invasive” to me. Immediately afterward, they had me get another mammogram which squeezed the band-aid off the wound and caused blood to squirt out. Because of the difficulty in finding the material to biopsy, my breast was bruised badly for weeks on the side opposite where the needle had entered. I used to be someone who went bra-less a good deal of the time, but for the next 5 years, I almost always wore an athletic bra that held my breasts tight against my chest. When the doctor called to tell me the biopsy was negative, she seemed completely unaware of the irony when I said, “Yes, we knew that would be the case, remember?” Since I never want to be in that vulnerable situation again, I have not had another mammogram.

I think the screening culture has had a tendency to downplay the problem of false alarms — even trivialize the discomfort and anxiety by juxtaposing it with the need to “save lives.” But it matters. Maybe it goes without saying: fear and pain is not good for human health. Medical care needs to work on reducing psychological stress — not creating it.

A number of women have told me they stopped mammography because they got so tired, frustrated, scared, or angry about false alarms. And recent research has documented that the psychological effects — anxiety, negative impact on sexuality and sleep, loss of inner calm — persist for at least three years following a false alarm. Of course, it doesn’t affect every woman the same way. Some may initially fear for their life only to be told a few days later that everything is fine. They are thankful and may even feel that the experience has given them some important new perspective on life. Others are left in limbo. While told they don’t have cancer, they are not told that everything is fine. Instead they learn their breasts are somehow abnormal — that they have dysplasia or atypia, that they are at “high risk” — and can only worry because the doctors aren’t doing anything about it. Nothing, except more mammograms.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

14 Responses to “Cancer screening a hoax”

  1. Dublinmick says:

    It is many of the wealthy women who get breast cancer as they can afford the constant mamograms. I know one this happened to. She was well off and could afford the best tests and care. Lost both breasts.

    My 90 year old mother was in a nursing home. This ‘doctor’ khazar, told me she had a lump in her breast and needed a masectomy.

    I told him lots of older women get benign lumps and it means nothing. He said do you know how painful breast cancer can be?

    I said do you know how easy it is to do an autopsy and find out?

    I never heard another word from him on that.

    A nurse told me her blood was low she needed a transfusion. I said great can I donate now, straight from arm to hers, we are the same blood type. She said no we can’t do that it has to come from the blood bank.

    I said maybe she doesn’t need one that bad then. Never heard any more on that either. My mother lived another 10 years and never got cancer.

    She did become diabetic from the absolute trash they feed them in nursing homes.

  2. ian says:

    As with all professions needing a degree, conforming to standard policy is necessary, or you won’t qualify. All doctors are yes men/women. Only alternative practitioners are outside this and some of them are fraudulent. It’s sort of you pay your money you take your chance. In the UK, us poor folks are at the mercy of Doctors who aren’t good enough to get a job in the private sector where they can earn much more. A local Doc’ who recently retired was known locally as Doctor death, such was his record of ineptitude. Good enough for the oinks though. If he’d been a mechanic, he’d have been sacked.

  3. bangonit says:

    My heart goes out to all the poor women that live in fear of getting breast cancer and those that have it. Viktor Schauberger an amazing visionary found that the slightest raising of temperature in the human body causes sickness of one sort or another. Since underarm deodorants like Sure have been used by millions of women daily they are blocking the very holes under their arms they need to lower the heat, Breast cancer on the scale we have today is largely due to this.
    If we all change to using salt crystals as underarm deodorants the bacteria that make us smell disappear and the salt doesnt block our holes. They are easy to obtain in any health food store.
    I have been using one for about ten years my armpits smell lovely, so can yours.
    Love peace harmonies.

    • emm jay says:

      Bangonit good info there thanks. Would the salt crystal deodorant you refer to, be the Salt Crystals of the Earth? Also, would you recommend the use of stick or spray? Been pondering deodorant chemical nasties for a while now, thanks for bringing my attention back to sorting it!

      • bangonit says:

        Hi emm jay, its a block of salt the size of a bar of soap. You can get them on a stick in body shop. I just bought 3 bars of himalayan pink salt for £15.00 in our health shop here in Glastonbury.
        Love peace harmonies.

      • emm jay says:

        Great stuff bangonit and thanks again. Love, peace and harmonies to you too!

      • Nicky says:

        I never knew that came from the great soul Viktor Schauberger, Nice one Bangonit. Bought a salt stick in the ninetees and there is still loads left, Last ages, Specially if you dont use it.
        Sure your aware the Mobile phones pocketed in the bra have been linked to Cancer emm jay. Just mentioning it in case. Assumption being the mother of all cockups and all.

      • Nicky says:

        Taps link takes you to natural news brings up this one also.
        http://www.naturalnews.com/053980_cell_phones_brain_cancer_scientific_evidence.html
        A Quick search for “mobile phones cause breast cancer” yields more hits than you can shake a stick at.

        I keep mine switched off and in a lead case I fashioned at night. Sleep much better for doing so as well. Was waking up every two hours till I started doing this.
        I have an old biscuit tin I will be lining with lead soon, Big enough to keep all my old mobiles in. The reason for this is, I recently attached a bluetooth dongle to my pc and sent over some pics from my mobile for ebay purposes. When searching for nearby bluetooth devices my old htc got picked up. It has not been used for eons, It had a flat battery, and was switched off.

      • Samadhi Maithuna says:

        Hi Emmjay due to operational reasons im no longer who i was but now someone else, though im still tge same person, i hope youre well

        Yes its a mindbending journey to realise, the entire cancer screening industry is part of the well oiled trillion dollar scam.
        —–
        I find it inspiring, and exciting though. Imagining the AnticancerSynergy. Of consuming
        – raw unpasteurised bitter almonds
        – raw unpasteurised butter and cheeses which not only are delicious but rich in CLA anticancer chemucal and vutamin K2 another magical missing link X factor nutrient against osteoporosis, cajcer, heart disease, other ills
        – Imagine too emmjay. Tge compounding synergy not only of the above. But also consuming GcMAF rich Kefir strain in raw milk or water eqch day too.

        Of course. Tge facts are now in beyond doubt. None of us must allow ourselves to be injected with vaccines or anything else by Government since tgese contain Nagalase whuch destroys GcMAF.

        GcMAF promoting lifestyle strategies, plus Nagalase restricting strategies, are the way forward.

        To end:
        – Even though taking 100mcgs vitamin k2 for every 1000IUs of D3 is needed since both are synergustic rely on the other. LifeExtension k2 complex is a good brand.

        Eating lots of cooked vegetables leafy greens, has abundant k1. However. Our bodies have the magucall ability no doubt forged in our ancestral past. In our peripheral tissues we convert k1 into k2! From cooked vegetables

        So theres another anticancer synergistic strategy. Goodnight
        ———–

        Because raw cheeses are unpasteurised, they not only have good amounts of vitamin k2 a much needed anticancer nutrient. Raw dairy has other anticancer chemicals too. As well as more minerals and other vitamins. Like vitamin A, which Bill and Melinda Gates want to outlaw. Also unpasteurised cheese tastes better too

      • Samadhi Maithuna says:

        Its funny how Bill and Melinda last year initiated 2 million pounds funding to a prominent russel univerity, to investigate the safety of vitamin A supplementation.
        Red flags were waving and i was appalled, and i intervened via guerilla emailing to key academic staff involved in.this Gates Khazar sly scam to outlaw vitamin A supplements. Not beta carotene but true A from fish oil for example.

        As a hard hitting acute anti infection weapon. High dose vitamin A isnt to be ignored, even against ebola. It needs to be in the weapons arsenal. Therefore i recognised immediately when i read it last year, this was a 2 million pound Khazarian Ta**ud strategy to discredit vitamin A, the Gates Foundation will already have had the end result in mind, for their 2 million investment. I truthfully spelled all this out to loads of staff though, copying everyone in so everyone knows Truth.
        I do not know whetger.in 2016 this vitamin A Gates study is still going ahead
        ————

        THE USE OF HIGH-DOSE VITAMIN A AS THERAPY FOR INFECTIONS AND FOR CANCER PREVENTION OR CORRECTION

        Vitamin A in higher doses can be used as an infection remedy. For bladder infections, colds, influenza and many other infections, vitamin A in doses of 20,000 iu to 100,000 iu daily can be extremely helpful. Often it is better than taking vitamin C, which also helps some infections. For cancer prevention and correction, vitamin A is also helpful, perhaps because it strengthens the immune response. Adding 10,000 iu daily or more may help with this problemh. I always suggest that vitamin A supplements should be the pre-formed vitamin A, not beta-carotene because many people have trouble converting carotenes to the active form of vitamin A.

        SYNERGY BETWEEN ZINC AND VITAMIN A

        Dr. Paul Eck pointed out that a strong synergistic relationship exists between vitamin A and zinc. Both lower sodium in the mineral balancing system of the body used in nutritional balancing science. To a limited degree, they are interchangeable, meaning that zinc and vitamin A can be substituted for one another to a limited degree, although this may sound unusual. Also, both are needed for proper immune response and the functioning of the skin, mucous membranes, energy production, vision, hormone production and other functions. Also, both are needed for the bones, for proper growth and development, and to prevent some birth defects. Therefore, this is an interesting synergism between a vitamin and a mineral. There are other such synergisms, such as between manganese and vitamin B1.

        http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/VITAMIN%20A.htm
        ————–
        PS the value of high dose short term vitamin A in an acute Lyme disease infection crisis shoukd not be understimated

      • Samadhi Maithuna says:

        Hi i dont mean to be a nuisance, but id like humanitys attention, on this situaion.
        This is imprative
        So even though i find you an interesting attractive Lightworker i resolutely say. We are battling Talmudic Jew strangulation on our Reakity
        Im.in no doubt emjay
        Trying to do what and how i can

  4. bangonit says:

    The salt stick didnt come from Viktor the small rise in temperature can cause cancer came from him.
    The cure for quare, deegay, quality, loved harry and co could not stomach clarkson.
    Love peace harmonies.

    • Nicky says:

      Ditto folks, Love peace and harmonies, Cannot get the Clarkson five tune out of my head now.
      My salt stick didn’t come from Viktor either.
      Nite 🙂

  5. Anzusz says:

    Many women SAY they want to know the facts about mammography but when they are presented with real factual data opposing the official medical narrative, they are quick to dismiss it or completely ignore it.

    Therefore, this is for those few women (and men) who don’t readily throw cognitive obstacles in their own way to chase away factual information and to keep them in the dark about mammography.

    IF…….. women (and men) at large were to examine the mammogram data above and beyond the information of the mammogram business cartel (eg American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Komen), they’d also find that it is almost exclusively the big profiteers of the test, ie. the “experts,” (eg radiologists, oncologists, medical trade associations, breast cancer “charities” etc) who promote the mass use of the test and that most pro-mammogram “research” is conducted by people with massive vested interests tied to the mammogram industry.

    Contrary to the official narrative (which is based on medical business-fabricated pro-mammogram “scientific” data), there is marginal, if any, reliable evidence that mammography reduces mortality from breast cancer in a significant way in any age bracket but a lot of solid evidence shows the procedure does provide more serious harm than serious benefit (read: ‘Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy’ by Peter Gotzsche and ‘The Mammogram Myth’ by Rolf Hefti).

    Most women are fooled by the misleading medical mantra that early detection by mammography saves lives simply because the public has been fed (“educated” or rather brainwashed) with a very one-sided biased pro-mammogram set of information circulated by the big business of mainstream medicine.

    Because of this one-sided promotion and marketing of the test by the medical business, women have been obstructed from making an “informed choice” about its benefits and risks which have been inaccurately depicted by the medical industry, favoring their business interests.

    Operating and reasoning based on this false body of information is the reason why very few women understand, for example, that a lot of breast cancer survivors are victims of harm instead of receivers of benefit. Therefore, almost all breast cancer “survivors” blindly repeat the official medical hype and nonsense.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.