- Here's some food for thought: Dr. Irwin Bross was director
of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.
In the 1970s, Dr. Bross headed a project that studied the alarming increase
in rates of leukemia. It was called the Tri-State Leukemia Study. His
sample used tumor registries from 16 million people from New York, Maryland,
and Minnesota. After checking factors as diverse as health history, occupational
history, residential history, family background, cause of death for parents
and grandparents, exposure to farm animals, pet ownership, whether or not
the pets had ever been sick, Dr. Bross came to the conclusion that the
main cause of the rising rates of leukemia was medical radiation in the
form of diagnostic medical X-rays (Leslie Freeman, ed., Nuclear Witnesses:
Insiders Speak Out, New York: Norton, 1982, p. 27).Dr. John Gofman, Professor
Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California
at Berkeley, was wondering the same thing in the early 1990s. His research
led him to write a 400-page book in which he estimates that "three-quarters
of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the United States is
being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources."
Astonishingly, this isn't even news. "[M]edical science," Gofman
continues, "has known for 20 years that ionizing radiation is a prominent
and proven cause of breast-cancer" (John Gofman, Preventing Breast
Cancer, San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, 1995, p. 303).
- Note the size of the study. It was no small sampling.
Note the words "prominent and proven." Not surprisingly, Dr.
Bross lost his funding from the National Cancer Institute when his study
was published in the respected American Journal of Public Health. This
despite the fact the Dr. Bross is an eminent researcher who has held prestigious
positions at major medical centers including Roswell Park and John Hopkins.
From Reclaiming our Health by John Robbins, p. 233-234(which also cites
the above study): In the early 1960's, working for the Atomic Energy Commission,
John Gofman established the Biomedical Research Division at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, for the purpose of evaluating the health effects of
all types of nuclear activities. There, he came to the distressing conclusion
that human exposure to ionizing radiation was far more serious than had
been previously recognized. Dr. Gofman's work led to his 1995 book Preventing
Breast Cancer, in which he came to a stunning conclusion: "Our estimate
is that about three quarters of the current annual incidence of breast
cancer in the United States is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation,
primarily from medical sources." John Gofman does not underestimate
the role played in cancer causation played by pesticides, hormone pills,
fatty diets, and other environmental stressors. He states: "There
is no inherent conflict or competition between carcinogens," because
they multiply each other's carcinogenic effects. But he finds the medical
use of radiation to be so crucial that it bears repeating: "An estimated
75 per cent of recent and current breat cancer cases would not have occurred
as they did, in the absence of earlier medical[and other] irradiation."
Although ionizing radiation, the type delivered by X-rays and radiotherapy,
is one of the few environmental contaminants known unequivocally to cause
many forms of cancer, it is routinely recommended for many cancer patients.
This, despite the fact that,with few exceptions, there is no proven benefit
- Breast Cancer? Breast Health! The Wise Woman Way
- By Susun S. Weed
- Published by Ash Tree
- "Scientists agree that there is no safe dose of
radiation. Cellular DNA in the breast is more easily damaged by very small
doses of radiation than thyroid tissue or bone marrow; in fact, breast
cells are second only to fetal tissues in sensitivity to radiation. And
the younger the breast cells, the more easily their DNA is damaged by radiation.
As an added risk, one percent of American women carry a hard-to-detect
oncogene which is triggered by radiation; a single mammogram increases
their risk of breast cancer by a factor of 4-6 times. "The usual dose
of radiation during a mammographic x-ray is from 0.25 to1 rad with the
very best equipment; that's 1-4 rads per screening mammogram (two views
each of two breasts). And, according to Samuel Epstein, M.D., of the University
of Chicago's School of Public Health, the dose can be ten times more than
that . Sister Rosalie Bertell-one of the world's most respected authorities
on the dangers of radiation-says one rad increases breast cancer risk one
percent and is the equivalent of one year's natural aging. "If a woman
has yearly mammograms from age 55 to age 75, she will receive a minimum
of 20 rads of radiation. For comparison, women who survived the atomic
bomb blasts in Hiroshima or Nagasaki absorbed 35 rads. Though one large
dose of radiation can be more harmful than many small doses, it is important
to remember that damage from radiation is cumulative."
- In other words, it appears that the diagnostic X-rays
being used to detect possible breast cancer are themselves a prime cause
of breast cancer. And then they turn around and recommend even higher doses
of radiation to treat the cancer. Insane!!! I'd recommend reading Reclaiming
Our Health by John Robbins. He goes into the medical madness of the AMA
and big drug companies but he also covers the alternative medical treatments
of cancer very well...treatments that have a much higher rate of success
than, say, chemeotherapy and radiation, which fail about 97% of the time
and subject the patient to "medievel torture" as one doctor called
it. Dr. Glenn Warner is a board certified oncologist and one of the most
highly qualified cancer specialist in the Seattle area. He uses alternative
treatments on his cancer patients with great success. He has over 1000
surviving cancer patients. On the treatment of cancer in this country he
said:"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people,
right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see
whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."
The Washington State Medical Board came after him and revoked his license
without any proof of incompetence, misconduct or malpractice and without
a single complaint from any of his patients. In fact, his patients raised
over $300,000 for his legal battle to get his license back. What does that
tell you about the priorities of our medical system and authorities?