The depths of mammography deceit + forever chemicals

Highly persistent and mobile human immune suppressing chemicals.

Disclaimer

I personally do not advocate any process or procedure contained in any of my Blogs. Information presented here is not intended to provide legal or lawful advice, nor medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevent any disease. Views expressed are for educational purposes only.

Thank you, Chris.

Decades old mammography scam

By Barry Lynes
Oct 14, 2017
Excerpts

The great deceit began in the early 1970s, concocted by insiders at the American Cancer Society (ACS) and their “friends” at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The number of women put “at risk” or who died as a result of this nefarious scheme is not known but estimated to be huge.

Mammography was known to cause cancer but media and “health officials” in government stayed silent! The mammography policy pushed by the American Cancer Society to fill its bank account remained U.S. government policy for ten more years, until a massive Canadian study showed conclusively what was known 20 YEARS before but not in the interests of ACS and NCI to admit: X raying the breasts of women younger than age 50 provided no benefit and probably endangered their lives. Continues at https://oawhealth.com/article/depths-deceit-mammography-barry-lynes/

Dangers of X-Ray exposure

June 10, 2003

For anyone contemplating a mammogram what follows is personal correspondence from Dr. James DeMeo.

“As a former anti-nuclear activist and scientific consultant on the issue of low-level radiation, I can inform you that this kind of argument -- that "natural" low-level radiation is something similar to human-generated x-rays or nuclear waste, is pure bunk, objections of the ignorant, or of knowing liars. In addition to what you say about whole-body exposure, consider this: X-rays are concentrated energy in one narrow spike of the EM spectrum.

Natural background even from airplane flights, are basically a wide variety of EM exposures ("particle-waves") which occur in a very wide spectral distribution, to include all kinds of stuff from Earth beta radiation, cosmic rays to the occasional gamma-ray burst. When the comparison is made from clinical x-ray exposure to natural background, it is done purely on the basis of the "energy under the curve", which is a deceptive procedure. The most accurate way to compare, is to contrast the peak quantity of exposure for the given frequency of interest -- and so, x-ray exposures from high-altitude airplane flights are negligible, practically zero. Maybe a small bit of "soft x-ray" is found at the top of the atmosphere, well above jet altitudes, and maybe a celestial object will occasionally emit an "x-ray burst", but these require exceedingly sensitive equipment to even detect them, and often have to be put into orbit, on satellites, before they can be detected, and they certainly would not penetrate into the body of an aircraft.

HARD X-RAY AS USED FOR DIAGNOSTICS AND THERAPY IS ANOTHER BEAST ALTOGETHER, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE GET VIRTUALLY NOTHING IN THOSE FREQUENCIES FROM NATURE. Certainly nothing approximating the peak intensities during a medical x-ray.”

Regards,
James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Continues at http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/06/10/the_depths_of_deceit_mammography.htm

Mammograms cause breast cancer

By Dawn Prate
Aug 15, 2005

Mammography has garnered sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.

Effectiveness of Mammography

In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 % of the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 % of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

Radiation Risks

In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

Navigating the statistics

The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Statistics about mammography and women between ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.

Experts speak out

The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected. The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291

Continues at https://naturalnews.com/010886_breast_cancer_mammograms.html

“Forever chemicals” and human immune system

Apr 08, 2021

Amid a flurry of new studies, scientists are still figuring out what risks these ubiquitous “forever chemicals” pose to public health. Epidemiologists and toxicologists point to myriad possible consequences, including thyroid disease, liver damage, and kidney and testicular cancers. Impacts on the immune system are a particular concern.

“What is really important is: what does the overall body of evidence tell us?” says environmental toxicologist Jamie DeWitt of East Carolina University in Greenville, NC. In a 2020 review, she and coauthors concluded that PFAS can suppress the human immune response. Similarly, in 2016, the National Toxicology Program concluded that PFOS and PFOA are “presumed to be an immune hazard to humans”.

PFAS Politics

The challenge of sorting out how best to regulate forever chemicals is almost as complex as PFAS research itself. “There are pushing 10,000 substances we call PFAS,” says environmental toxicologist Jamie DeWitt of East Carolina University. “Only a handful have been studied for their health effects.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a lifetime health advisory for PFOA and PFOS, suggesting that combined levels of these chemicals in drinking water should not exceed 70 parts per trillion. But the health advisory isn’t a regulation and isn’t enforceable. Continues at https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105018118

Serum vaccine antibody concentrations in children exposed to perfluorinated compounds

What they found was that in children who had higher concentrations of these substances, there was a reduction in antibody responses after vaccination, which should raise alarm bells in terms of potential reasons why there are repeated infections with covid 19 and perhaps other infections in industrialized countries where there may be higher concentrations of these substances. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22274686/

Self-educate

Most people are too trusting and/or too busy to realize how human health is being harmed through some medical testing procedures and devices, drugs, wireless devices, forever chemicals and their alleged safe replacements found in non-stick cookware, food packaging, home appliances, public water, clothing, cosmetics, carpets, furniture, air, etc.

Who benefits?

What else in day to day interaction with our environment makes people sick and/or suppresses human immune response? Where do humans go when they get sick?

Without prejudice and without recourse
Doreen Agostino
Our Greater Destiny Blog
health