Too Much Fundraising for Cancer Research
My children often wonder why I don't donate to the American Cancer Society or the Komen Foundation. Of course, I, like most of you, want to find a cure for cancer. However, most of the non-profit cancer foundations do not promote searching for an underlying cause of cancer Instead, they perpetuate the myth that commonly used screening tests are winning the war against cancer. We are clearly losing the war against cancer. There are estimates that one in three of us will be diagnosed with cancer in our lifetime. That is a travesty.
The Powers-That–Be in the cancer fundraising world--such as the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the Komen Foundation--would have you believe we are making progress against cancer. However, we are not making any respectable progress. In fact, over the last 60 years, more and more people are diagnosed with cancer and more are dying from it. The Powers-That-Be are too busy fundraising and promoting faulty diagnostic tests such as mammograms instead of promoting research to determine the underlying cause of cancer and how to avoid getting cancer.
Let’s look at mammography. I have written about the mammography controversy in past blog posts and in my Natural Way to Health newsletter. In the 2009 newsletter, I wrote, “If mammograms were an effective screening tool, you would expect, over time, the earlier the disease is detected and treated that cases of more advanced disease would decline significantly.” However, this has not occurred from the use of mammography. Mammography is very sensitive. It has the ability to diagnose breast cancer at an early stage. However, mammography is not effective at saving lives.
A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal was titled, “How a charity oversells mammography.” (2) In this article, the authors have an ad from the Koman Foundation where a woman is stating, “What’s the key to surviving breast cancer?” The answer in the ad is “You.” Furthermore, the answer states the key to surviving is to “get screened now,” via mammography. However, the editorial correctly point out that a screening mammogram provides very little guarantee that it would save a life. In fact, the authors correctly state, “The best evidence indicates that {screening mammograms} will decrease the chance a 50 year old woman will die from breast cancer in the next 10 years {by} 0.07 percentage points.” Furthermore, they state, “…some experts question whether screening mammography has any benefit.” Finally, mammography is dangerous as it utilizes ionizing radiation.
We know that ionizing radiation causes cancer, including breast cancer. It is ludicrous to recommend yearly mammograms when, after 10 years of annual mammograms, a woman’s breasts have been exposed to the same amount of ionizing radiation that a woman received one mile from the nuclear blast at Hiroshima. So, what can you do? I think thermography is a safe and effective screening test for breast cancer. Thermography measures the temperature changes in the skin and the breast tissue. Breast cancer usually presents as ‘hot’ areas on a thermography report. I encourage my patients to use thermography as the initial screening test and follow-up with a mammogram or another radiological procedure if there is a problem detected. More information about thermagraphy can be found here: www.thermascan.com.
The best way to avoid getting cancer is by adopting a holistic lifestyle which includes:
• Eating organic food free of pesticides, synthetic hormones and refined food
• Exercising daily
• Avoiding the use of drugs that increase the risk cancer including statin drugs and synthetic hormones such as Premarin, Provera and birth control pills
• Detoxifying (periodically) the liver and the colon
• Maintaining adequate nutrient levels including iodine and vitamin C Cancer is a deadly disease
If we do not change our bad dietary habits and adopt a more holistic approach I do not see our cancer statistics improving. I will be devoting an entire issue of my Natural Way To Health newsletter to this topic.
More information about this topic can be found here: http://w3.newsmax.com/newsletters/brownstein/breast_cancer.cfm
(1) CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2012 (2) BMJ 2012;345:e5132 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5132 (Published 2 August 2012) (3) The Breast Journal. May 2000. Vol. 6, N.3. p. 209-212
The Powers-That–Be in the cancer fundraising world--such as the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the Komen Foundation--would have you believe we are making progress against cancer. However, we are not making any respectable progress. In fact, over the last 60 years, more and more people are diagnosed with cancer and more are dying from it. The Powers-That-Be are too busy fundraising and promoting faulty diagnostic tests such as mammograms instead of promoting research to determine the underlying cause of cancer and how to avoid getting cancer.
Let’s look at mammography. I have written about the mammography controversy in past blog posts and in my Natural Way to Health newsletter. In the 2009 newsletter, I wrote, “If mammograms were an effective screening tool, you would expect, over time, the earlier the disease is detected and treated that cases of more advanced disease would decline significantly.” However, this has not occurred from the use of mammography. Mammography is very sensitive. It has the ability to diagnose breast cancer at an early stage. However, mammography is not effective at saving lives.
A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal was titled, “How a charity oversells mammography.” (2) In this article, the authors have an ad from the Koman Foundation where a woman is stating, “What’s the key to surviving breast cancer?” The answer in the ad is “You.” Furthermore, the answer states the key to surviving is to “get screened now,” via mammography. However, the editorial correctly point out that a screening mammogram provides very little guarantee that it would save a life. In fact, the authors correctly state, “The best evidence indicates that {screening mammograms} will decrease the chance a 50 year old woman will die from breast cancer in the next 10 years {by} 0.07 percentage points.” Furthermore, they state, “…some experts question whether screening mammography has any benefit.” Finally, mammography is dangerous as it utilizes ionizing radiation.
We know that ionizing radiation causes cancer, including breast cancer. It is ludicrous to recommend yearly mammograms when, after 10 years of annual mammograms, a woman’s breasts have been exposed to the same amount of ionizing radiation that a woman received one mile from the nuclear blast at Hiroshima. So, what can you do? I think thermography is a safe and effective screening test for breast cancer. Thermography measures the temperature changes in the skin and the breast tissue. Breast cancer usually presents as ‘hot’ areas on a thermography report. I encourage my patients to use thermography as the initial screening test and follow-up with a mammogram or another radiological procedure if there is a problem detected. More information about thermagraphy can be found here: www.thermascan.com.
The best way to avoid getting cancer is by adopting a holistic lifestyle which includes:
• Eating organic food free of pesticides, synthetic hormones and refined food
• Exercising daily
• Avoiding the use of drugs that increase the risk cancer including statin drugs and synthetic hormones such as Premarin, Provera and birth control pills
• Detoxifying (periodically) the liver and the colon
• Maintaining adequate nutrient levels including iodine and vitamin C Cancer is a deadly disease
If we do not change our bad dietary habits and adopt a more holistic approach I do not see our cancer statistics improving. I will be devoting an entire issue of my Natural Way To Health newsletter to this topic.
More information about this topic can be found here: http://w3.newsmax.com/newsletters/brownstein/breast_cancer.cfm
(1) CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2012 (2) BMJ 2012;345:e5132 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5132 (Published 2 August 2012) (3) The Breast Journal. May 2000. Vol. 6, N.3. p. 209-212
posted by Dr. David Brownstein @ 10:30 AM
5 Comments
