– Double mastectomies offer almost no survival benefit for breast cancer patients, 20-year study proves (Natural News, July 30, 2014):
Western medicine is so aggressive and cut-throat that even the idea of prevention has been skewed to the point of chopping off and cutting out body parts for “preventing” cancer that isn’t even there.
Fear and self-mutilation are not the answer. Today in American mainstream medicine, women are given the option to remove healthy breasts, ovaries and other female parts so cancer won’t get a hold of them in the future. This is like preventing house fires by first burning out important internal structures that might catch fire one day.
Virtually no survival benefit for women who underwent “preventive” mastectomies
Scroll all the way down to check if there is a working upload left.
Aaaaand the video is gone.
That was fast.
Download the video as the replacements may soon also disappear.
So after the video constantly has been removed from YouTube I’ve added 3 replacements, hoping that at least one of them will stay up.
Now they are all gone.
Thanks to reader squodgy here is another replacement.
Let’s see how long this one will last.
In any case download it ASAP and let people know about it.
– Study reveals that antibacterial soap causes breast cancer (Natural News, May 4, 2014)
– Largest, Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit (Dr. Mercola, Feb 26, 2014):
It appears once again, major industry defenders will remain in complete denial and do anything possible to put profits before people.
An annual mammogram is the conventional go-to “prevention” strategy for breast cancer. But researchers increasingly agree that mammography is ineffective at best and harmful at worst.
Unfortunately, breast cancer is big business, and mammography is one of its primary profit centers. This is why the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep it, even if it means ignoring the truth.
Several studies over the past few years have concluded that mammograms do not save lives, and may actually harm more women than they help, courtesy of false positives, overtreatment, and radiation-induced cancers.
The latest study to reach this conclusion is also one of the longest and largest. As reported by the New York Times:1
Antidepressants, like Paxil, cause all kinds of cancer …
… because like with Prozac …
… the active ingredient is fluoride!
“Fluoride causes more human cancer, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.”
– Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus, US National Cancer Institute
“Yes, Prozac is 18.4% fluoride, by molecular weight. Luvox is 17.9% fluoride. Paxil is 6.1% fluoride. All these drugs numb your mind, using fluoride as the key element that reacts with your brain tissue.“
Source: Mike Adams, Natural News
Cancer is just one among many detrimental health effects caused by fluoride.
– New test suggests antidepressant Paxil may promote breast cancer (Los Angeles Times, Feb 18, 2014):
A team of researchers from the City of Hope in Duarte has developed a speedy way to identify drugs and chemicals that can disrupt the balance of sex hormones in human beings and influence the development and progress of diseases such as breast cancer.
In a trial screening of 446 drugs in wide circulation, the new assay singled out the popular antidepressant paroxetine (better known by its commercial name, Paxil) as having a weak estrogenic effect that could promote the development and growth of breast tumors in women.
– Cell phone radiation breast cancer link – New study raises grave concerns (Natural News, Nov 27, 2013):
A new study raises concerns of a possible association between cell phone radiation exposure and breast cancer in young women.
The research team, led by Dr. Lisa Bailey, a former president of the American Cancer Society’s California Division and one of California’s top breast surgeons, studied four young women – aged from 21 to 39 years old – with multifocal invasive breast cancer.
The researchers observed that all the patients developed tumors in areas of their breasts next to where they carried their cell phones, often for up to 10 hours per day, for several years. None of the patients had a family history of breast cancer. They all tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 – breast cancer genes linked to about one-half of breast cancer cases – and they had no other known breast cancer risks.
Imaging of the young girls’ breasts revealed a clustering of multiple tumor foci in the part of the breast directly under where their cell phones touched their body.
“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”
– Research: Ginger Selectively Kills Breast Cancer Cells (GreenMedInfo, Oct 1, 2013):
New research published in the Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology found that “ginger may be a promising candidate for the treatment of breast carcinomas.”[i] This is a timely finding, insofar as breast cancer awareness month is only days away, and one of the primary fund-raising justifications is the false concept that a low-cost, safe and effective breast cancer treatment is not yet available. Could ginger provide the type of cure that conventional, FDA-approved treatments have yet to accomplish?
The new study was performed by researchers at the Biological Sciences Department, Faculty of Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia, who discovered that a crude extract derived from the medicinal plant ginger (Zingiber officinale) inhibited the proliferation of breast cancer cells, without significantly affecting the viability of non-tumor breast cells — a highly promising property known as selective cytotoxicity, not found in conventional treatments.
– U.S. plans to hike allowed glyphosate levels in food supply (GM Watch, July 2, 2013):
1. U.S. weighing increase in herbicide levels in food supply
2. GMO crops mean more herbicide, not less
NOTE: The US EPA is preparing to massively raise the allowed residue level for glyphosate in some food and feed crops, including soy (see item 1 below).
The article below says the new EPA regulation would allow “oilseed” crops such as flax, canola, and soybean oil to contain glyphosate at levels up to 40 parts per million (ppm), up from 20 ppm, which is over 100,000 times the concentration needed to induce the growth of human breast cancer cells in vitro, according to a recent study:
It also raises the allowable glyphosate contamination level for food crops such as potatoes from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm.
Late last week, a story broke that revealed glyphosate — the chemical name of Roundup herbicide — multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500% to 1300%… even at exposures of just a few parts per trillion (ppt).
The study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, is entitled, “Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.” You can read the abstract here.
There’s a whole lot more to this story, however, but to follow it, you need to understand these terms:
– Breast cancer overdiagnosis skyrocketing as women everywhere receive dangerous and unnecessary mammograms (Natural News, May 28, 2013):
The studies just keep rolling on in with more and more evidence showing that the breast cancer screening ritual known as mammography is not everything that it is cracked up to be. One of the latest studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), for instance, analyzed more than 30 years’ worth of data on mammography and found that nearly 1.5 million women have been needlessly treated for cancers that were not at all harmful or that technically did not even exist.
Dr. Archie Bleyer, an oncologist at the Oregon Health and Science University Knight Cancer Institute, and his colleagues took on the task of poring through the myriad of published data on mammograms since the time they first became widely popularized as a breast cancer screening tool back in the 1970s. After adjusting the data to account for changing lifestyle trends, the use of hormone replacement therapy, and other outside factors that might have skewed the data, the team estimated that mammography has been responsible for nearly doubling the overall detection rate of early-stage breast cancers.
From the article:
NOTE: This story is not relevant to more than 99% of American women.
Why? Because more than 99% of women do not have the BRCA1 mutation — or the BRCA2 mutation, for that matter.
And if the 1% would live a healthy lifestyle and learn about the Gerson Therapy, then they would never ever get cancer (unless they would move to Fukushima maybe).
– What Angelina Jolie forgot to mention (CNN, May 20, 2013):
Editor’s note: H. Gilbert Welch is a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and a co-author of “Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health.”
CNN – I first saw the headline early Tuesday on Real Clear Politics, a political news site where I generally start my morning. It’s not where I expect to see a story on breast cancer.
Then I checked my e-mail messages — they all seemed to be about Angelina Jolie’s op-ed. Students in my undergraduate class wanted to discuss it in our next session. Colleagues expressed concern and wondered what the right response was. People I don’t even know sent e-mails.
One, from a research fellow at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, nicely summed up the general concern: “I fear that this disclosure will motivate other women to undergo preventive mastectomy, even though they do not need it.”
Wow. Maybe I should read it.
– Angelina Jolie inspires women to maim themselves by celebrating medically perverted double mastectomies (Natural News, May 15, 2013):
Angelina Jolie announced yesterday that she had both of her breasts surgically removed even though she had no breast cancer. She carries the BRCA1 gene, and she has been tricked into believing that genetic code is some sort of absolute blueprint to disease expression — which it most certainly is not. Countless millions of women carry the BRCA1 gene and never express breast cancer because they lead healthy, anti-cancer lifestyles based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals.
Jolie, like many other women who have been deluded by cancer quackery, decided the best way to prevent the risk of breast cancer was not to lead a healthy, anti-cancer lifestyle, but rather to surgically remove her breasts in what she describes as “three months of medical procedures.”
Take a look at this:
Horned Hand or The Mano Cornuto: this gesture is the Satanic salute, a sign of recognition between and allegiance of members of Satanism or other unholy groups.
And this is just (another) movie:
Maleficent (pronounced /məˈlɛfɪsənt/) is a fictional character and the main antagonist in Walt Disney’s 1959 film Sleeping Beauty. She is the self-proclaimed “Mistress of All Evil” who, after not being invited to a royal christening, curses the infant Princess Aurora to “prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die” before the sun sets on her sixteenth birthday. The character is Disney’s adaptation of the wicked fairy godmother from the original French fairy tale.
Maleficent is often viewed as the most powerful and sinister of the Disney Villains, frequently acting as their leader in many crossovers, and her scenes in the climax of the film are among the darkest and most intense produced by Disney. In Ultimate Disney’s top 30 Disney Villains countdown, Maleficent ranked #1. She also plays a major role in the Kingdom Hearts series, as a recurring villain.
– My Medical Choice (New York Times, May 14, 2013, by Angelina Jolie):
MY MOTHER fought cancer for almost a decade and died at 56. She held out long enough to meet the first of her grandchildren and to hold them in her arms. But my other children will never have the chance to know her and experience how loving and gracious she was.
We often speak of “Mommy’s mommy,” and I find myself trying to explain the illness that took her away from us. They have asked if the same could happen to me. I have always told them not to worry, but the truth is I carry a “faulty” gene, BRCA1, which sharply increases my risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.
My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman.
Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited gene mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA1 have a 65 percent risk of getting it, on average.
Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy. I started with the breasts, as my risk of breast cancer is higher than my risk of ovarian cancer, and the surgery is more complex.
On April 27, I finished the three months of medical procedures that the mastectomies involved. During that time I have been able to keep this private and to carry on with my work.
But I am writing about it now because I hope that other women can benefit from my experience. Cancer is still a word that strikes fear into people’s hearts, producing a deep sense of powerlessness. But today it is possible to find out through a blood test whether you are highly susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer, and then take action.
– Marchioness of Worcester: organic diet helped me beat breast cancer (Telegraph, Dec 30, 2012):
The Marchioness of Worcester has spoken for the first time about her successful battle against breast cancer, and has credited an organic diet and complementary medicine with helping her beat the disease. The former actress had breast and lymph cancer diagnosed in 2009.
Despite having to deal with the rigours of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the Marchioness continued her environmental and animal cruelty campaigns.
The Marchioness, 54, said that she did not tell anyone about her cancer battle because “it is just so boring”. “Why become obsessed by something so boring and negative when the world is such an interesting place?” she said.
Now clear of the condition, the Marchioness is adamant that her diet of organic food played a key role in maintaining her strength and aiding her recovery.
… and the risk of all other types of cancer to ZERO if you are on a raw food diet.
And not only that, a raw food diet will keep you young and vital:
– Fat, Sick & Nearly Dead (Documentary – Extended Trailer)
– Fruits, vegetables may cut breast cancer risk (PressTV, Dec 10, 2012):
A new study conducted by a team of micronutrients has suggested that Carotenoids in fruits and vegetables can protect women against developing breast cancer.
Researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School discovered that women with high blood levels of carotenoids are less threatened by the risk of developing breast cancer.
According to the study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the anti-oxidant properties of different types of carotenoids such as alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein and zeaxanthin can help prevent cancerous tissue in the breast.
Researchers claim that a diet high in carotenoid-rich fruits and vegetables by affecting mechanisms such as the immune system can protect the body against some different types of cancer particularly estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer types.
The compounds may improve communication between cells, cell defense and repair, they explained.
Mammography is a cruel medical hoax. As I have described here on Natural News many times, the primary purpose of mammography is not to “save” women from cancer, but to recruit women into false positives that scare them into expensive, toxic treatments like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.
The “dirty little secret” of the cancer industry is that the very same oncologists who scare women into falsely believing they have breast cancer are also the ones pocketing huge profits from selling those women chemotherapy drugs. The conflicts of interest and abandonment of ethics across the cancer industry is breathtaking.
Now, a new scientific study has confirmed exactly what I’ve been warning readers about for years: most women “diagnosed” with breast cancer via mammography never had a cancer problem to begin with!
93% of “early detection” has no benefit to the patient
That’s the conclusion of a groundbreaking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
– Cannabis plant extract ‘could stop aggressive cancers from spreading’ (Daily Mail, Sep 20, 2012):
- Compound in the plant does not produce psychoactive properties of cannabis
- Found not only to stop breast cancer cells from acting ‘crazy’ but also to return to normal cells
A compound found in cannabis could halt the spread of many forms of aggressive cancer, scientists say.
Researchers found that the compound, called cannabidiol, had the ability to ‘switch off’ the gene responsible for metastasis in an aggressive form of breast cancer. Importantly, this substance does not produce the psychoactive properties of the cannabis plant.
The team from the California Pacific Medical Center, in San Francisco, first spotted its potential five years ago, after it stopped the proliferation of human breast cancer cells in the lab.
– 55-year-old former model battles breast cancer with diet changes; refuses chemo and surgery (Natural News, Aug 16, 2012):
The story of former model Jessica Richards’ battle with cancer is a remarkable one, especially because it has defected from the use of conventional treatments like chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. In her book The Topic of Cancer, Richards explains how following a strict metabolic diet and receiving high-dose intravenous injections of vitamin C has helped successfully reverse the progression of her breast cancer, to the shock of many conventional doctors.
It is a story you will likely never hear from the mainstream media, at least not from the perspective of being taken seriously, and yet it is one that people desperately need to hear. Rather than follow in the footsteps of the millions of others who have lost their lives as a result of all the cutting, burning, and poisoning, Richards made the personal, informed decision to naturally fight breast cancer by feeding her body a plethora of cancer-fighting nutrients, and cutting out a host of cancer-causing foods and substances.
– New study: Radiation treatments create cancer cells 30 times more potent than regular cancer cells (Natural News, March 19, 2012):
In a groundbreaking new study just published in the peer reviewed journal Stem Cells, researchers at UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Department of Oncology found that, despite killing half of all tumor cells per treatment, radiation treatments on breast cancer transforms other cancer cells into cancer stem cells which are vastly more treatment-resistant than normal cancer cells. The new study is yet another blow to the failed and favored mainstream treatment paradigm of trying to cut out, poison out or burn out cancer symptoms (tumors) instead of actually curing cancer.
Senior study author Dr. Frank Pajonk, associate professor of radiation oncology at the Jonsson Center, reported that induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSC) “were generated by radiation-induced activation of the same cellular pathways used to reprogram normal cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) in regenerative medicine.” Pjonk, who is also a scientist with the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine at UCLA, added “It was remarkable that these breast cancers used the same reprogramming pathways to fight back against the radiation treatment.”
In the new study, Pajonk and his team irradiated normal non-stem cell cancer cells and placed them into mice. Through a unique imaging system, the researchers observed the cells differentiate into iBCSC in response to radiation treatments. Pjonk reported that the newly generated cells were remarkably similar to non-irradiated breast cancer stem cells. The team of researchers also found that the radiation-induced stem cells had a more than 30-fold increased ability to form tumors compared with non-irradiated breast cancer cells.
Despite mounting evidence, mainstream medicine clings to surgery, chemo and radiation and ignores natural solutions
Profiteers in the medical CT scan business took a big hit last week from a major new government report on the causes of breast cancer.
Published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the exhaustive analysis found that medical radiation, particularly the large radiation dose delivered by CT scans, is the foremost identifiable cause of breast cancer.
Almost 230,480 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed this year in the United States, and about 40,000 women will die of the disease, roughly one out of every 3,875 women.
– BPA Leads to Fertility Defect in Offspring (Natural Society, Oct. 31, 2011):
Bishphenol a (BPA), the headline-topping chemical commonly found in plastics, cans, and food packaging has been tied to yet another negative condition — adversely affecting male genital development and subsequently targeting fertility rates. If you have been following the latest BPA research, then it should be no surprise to you that BPA has been repeatedly linked to diabetes, breast cancer (with over 130 total studies), hyperactivity and depression, and countless other conditions.
BPA alters Anogenital distance, heavily tied to fertility in men
The study, which involved the World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Research in Human Reproduction, examined the effect of BPA on Anogenital distance (AGD). AGD is the distance between the genitalia and the anus, and is biologically very important. AGD has been linked to fertility in males, making the affect of BPA on the male reproductive system quite significant. Linked to both semen volume and sperm count, men with an abnormally short AGD (lower than the median around 52 mm (2 in) have seven times the chance of being sub-fertile as compared to those with a longer AGD.
This is particularly startling due to the fact that BPA has been found in 90% of babies’ cord blood.
Researchers examined 153 boys, 56 with parental occupational exposure during pregnancy and 97 without. After factoring in the weight and age of the boys using regular linear regression, the study found that parental occupational exposure to BPA during pregnancy was associated with shortened AGD in male offspring. What this means is that those who were exposed to high levels of BPA during pregnancy were found to birth offspring with AGD defects. But what about those who do not deal with BPA exposure through their occupation?
– Widely used CAD mammography tool fails to find invasive breast cancer, causes needless tests and stress (NaturalNews, July 28, 2011):
Computer-aided detection (CAD) technology, which analyzes mammography images and marks suspicious areas for radiologists to review, has been widely hyped and pushed on women as a way to insure invasive breast cancer is spotted on mammograms. And it has grown into a huge industry, adding millions of dollars to the cost of healthcare.
The problem is, CAD simply doesn’t work — at all. That’s right. Despite the fact CAD is now applied to the large majority of screening mammograms in the U.S. with annual direct Medicare costs exceeding $30 million (according to a 2010 study in the Journal of the American College of Radiology), new research by University of California at Davis (UC Davis) scientists shows the expensive technology is ineffective in finding breast tumors.
But it does something extremely well. It causes enormous stress by greatly increasing a woman’s risk of being called back for more costly testing following a CAD analyzed mammogram.
The new research, just published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, used data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to analyze 1.6 million mammograms. Entitled “Effectiveness of Computer-Aided Detection in Community Mammography Practice,” the study specifically looked at screening mammograms performed on more than 680,000 women at 90 mammography facilities in seven U.S. states, between the years of 1998 and 2006.
The results are being hailed as the most definitive findings to date on whether the super popular mammography tool is effective in locating cancer in the breast. The findings? CAD is a waste of time and money.
The false-positive rate increased from 8.1 percent before CAD to 8.6 percent after CAD was installed at the medical centers in the study. What’s more, the detection rate of breast cancer and the stage and size of breast cancer tumors were similar regardless of whether or not CAD was used.
“In real-world practice, CAD increases the chances of being unnecessarily called back for further testing because of false-positive results without clear benefits to women,” Joshua Fenton, assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Family and Community Medicine, said in a statement to the media. “Breast cancers were detected at a similar stage and size regardless of whether or not radiologists used CAD.”
Woman with a diet rich in Vitamin D who are exposed to plenty of sunlight are less likely to develop breast cancer
A diet packed with Vitamin D combined with high levels of sunlight could reduce the risk of breast cancer in women by 43 per cent.
A new study of 70,000 women conducted over ten years revealed that a diet high in Vitamin D had no effect on its own.
One theory is that consuming a diet rich in Vitamin D makes a difference only when there is already a sufficient amount produced from sun exposure.
Therefore, when sun exposure is low, diet intake does not make any difference to risk of disease.
Read this article in German here:
And only use organic olive oil.
(NaturalNews) Olive oil may help prevent and even fight breast cancer, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain, and published in the journal Carcinogenesis.
The researchers found that olive oil appeared to protect rat DNA from the damage that can lead to cancer. Furthermore, it seemed to deactivate key proteins required for the continued survival of breast cancer cells.
Because the benefits were only seen in rats who consumed olive oil over the long term, researcher Eduard Escrich recommends that everyone consume 50 milliliters (10 teaspoons) of high-quality, extra-virgin olive oil each day.
Previous studies have linked olive oil to a lowered risk of certain kinds of cancer. Olive oil is also a critical component of the Mediterranean diet, which is associated with a lower risk of not only cancer, but also heart disease and degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
In another study, conducted by researchers from Barcelona’s Insitut Municial d’Investigacion Medica and published in the journal FASEB, olive oil was found to hamper the activity of genes associated with the hardening of arteries characteristic of heart disease.