Important Information regarding Cervical Cancer, HPV, and Vaccines

This post, like other posts on this blog, has been written with the intention of connecting readers with as much data on the subject as possible. The information in it has been collated from a variety of credentialed sources to facilitate as deep a comprehension of the subject as possible. For that reason, and because of the importance of the subject and the data, I would recommend that after reading it you save it as a PDF and return to it for at least  another once over, including following the links, which connect to both specific information and to valuable suppressed information sources. A PDF is also a more constructive way to share the information, and this is information that needs to be shared.

Cervical Cancer

Last week in the UK was Cervical Cancer Prevention week. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, one of the leading voices in the campaign, is the UK’s only charity dedicated to providing support and information services for people affected by cervical abnormalities and cervical cancer. The following are statements from their website:

Cervical cancer forms in tissues of the cervix (the organ connecting the uterus and vagina). It is usually a slow-growing cancer that may or may not have symptoms but can be prevented through regular screening (a procedure in which cells are taken from the cervix and looked at under a microscope).Cervical cancer is not thought to be hereditary.

Cervical cancer kills 3 women a day in the UK whilst every 3 hours a woman is diagnosed. Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women under the age of 29 and the second most common cancer in women under 35.

99.7% of cervical cancers are caused by persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection which causes changes to the cervical cells. HPV is an extremely common virus; around four out of five people be exposed to the virus. Anyone who is sexually active can be infected with HPV at some time and the body’s immune system will usually clear it up.

Cervical abnormalities are caused by persistant HPV infection. These abnormal cells found through cervical screening are not cancerous but given time (often years) they may go on to develop into cancer. However, often the cells return to normal by themselves. Information from the NHS National Screening Programmes 2010-11 showed that 7-9% of women will have abnormal cells of which only a small percentage will go on to have cancer.

The most effective method of preventing cervical cancer is through regular cervical screening which allows detection of any early changes of the cervix and for younger women the HPV vaccination can help prevent 70% of cervical cancers.

Cervical cancer is a preventable disease. Despite this in the UK in 2010, 20% of women did not take up their invitation for cervical screening and only 50% of girls offered the HPV vaccine in the catch-up programme have elected to have this potentially life saving jab. Raising public awareness of cervical cancer prevention is more necessary than ever.

The strategy recommended by this and other UK cancer charities consists of regular smear test screening for early detection and treatment with HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix. The Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust states,

Gardasil can be prescribed for women between the ages of 9 and 26. Cervarix can be given to women over the age of 10. The vaccines work best if given before women come into contact with the virus. As the virus is transmitted by skin to skin contact, usually by sexual activity, this age will vary. In practical terms, the most effective and easiest way to reach everybody is for girls to be vaccinated before they are sexually active. In the UK, the HPV vaccination programme is offered to girls from the age of 12 to 18. HPV vaccination has been shown to prevent infection and abnormal cells changes to the cervix for at least 9 years but it is expected to last longer. Ongoing studies will show how much longer you will be protected for and whether booster shots will be required.

Both Gardasil and Cervarix, will protect against the two highest risk HPV types. But unfortunately women can be infected with more than one type of HPV. Having the vaccine will provide protection against 70% of all cervical cancers and it will also prevent most of the more serious precancerous changes (CIN 2 and 3) 

Both the vaccines have shown evidence for providing cross protection for other strains of HPV which may mean that it has a much higher protection level than first thought

On the issue of side effects, it says,

Thousands of girls and women of different ages took part in the clinical trials for the HPV vaccines. These trials found that the vaccine offers 99% protection against infection with the high-risk types of HPV in girls who haven’t previously been infected with the virus. Side effects from both vaccines are usually mild. 

Side effects for the Gardasil HPV vaccine include:

Very common side effects (side effects which may occur in more than 1 per 10 doses of vaccine) reported by girls who have received the vaccine are:

injection site problems such as redness, bruising, itching, swelling, pain or cellulitis

headaches

Common (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 10 but more than 1 per 100 doses of vaccine):

fever

nausea (feeling sick)

painful arms, hands, legs or feet

Rare (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 100 but more than 1 per 1,000 doses of vaccine):

More than 1 in 10,000 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

An itchy red rash (urticaria)

Fewer than 1 in 10,000 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

Restriction of the airways and difficult breathing (brochospasm)

The above vaccine information is from that provided by the NHS.

Parallels with breast cancer campaigns and treatment

breast-cancer-ribbonNow at this point  it would be useful to consider an historical precedent with many almost carbon copy aspects, namely, breast cancer. The past years have seen an increase in breast cancer and as a result an increase in awareness campaigns like last week’s Cervical Cancer Prevention Week. Pink ribbons, are displayed on TV, poster and magazine advertisements as well as proudly adorn women’s lapels, and charity events are run, which generate millions of pounds/dollars.

These campaigns also, as it happens, recommend early detection and treatment with a pharmaceutical drug. As with smear tests the ever-widening target age group among women are encouraged to have regular mammograms.

Dr. Sherrill Sellman N.D., is an international author, passionate advocate for women’s health care issues and psychotherapist.  She has extensively researched the most vital and up to-date information necessary for hormonal health and well being, which is in her best selling books “Hormone Heresy: What Women MUST Know About Their Hormones” and “What Women MUST Know To Protect Their Daughters From Breast Cancer”, and as she says, there is something you must know.

As with most campaigns, breast cancer and indeed cervical cancer campaigns receive sponsor funding. As is often the case corporate sponsor funding is often present, particularly from companies that have something to gain from the hoped-for effects of the campaign.

In the article Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection by Dr Sellman, she points out a Breast Cancer Awareness month campaign whose primary sponsor of the event was Zeneca Pharmaceutical’s, now known as AstraZeneca. Zeneca is the company that manufactures the controversial and widely prescribed breast cancer drug, TAMOXIFEN. All TV, radio and print media were paid for and had to be approved by Zeneca.

It is less known that Zeneca also makes herbicides and fungicides.  One of their products, the organochlorine pesticide, acetochlor is implicated as a causal factor in breast cancer.  Zeneca’s Perry, Ohio chemical plant was the third largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the US, spewing 53,000 pounds of recognised carcinogens into the air in 1996.

Perhaps we can forgive Zeneca’s involvement with carcinogenic chemicals, since it researched and patented the most popular breast cancer treatment, tamoxifen, grossing 500 million dollars annually. Perhaps not. On May 16, 2000 the New York Times reported that the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences listed substances that are known to cause cancer.

Tamoxifen was included in that list!!

It is known that tamoxifen causes uterine cancer, liver cancer and gastrointestinal cancer.  After just two to three years of use, tamoxifen will increase the incidence of uterine cancer by two – three times. The treatment for uterine cancer is an hysterectomy.  In addition, tamoxifen increases the risk of strokes, blood clots, eye damage, menopausal symptoms, and depression.

The biggest shock of all is the fact that tamoxifen will increase the risk of breast cancer!  The journal Science published a study from Duke University Medical Center in 1999 showing that after 2-5 years, tamoxifen actually initiated the growth of breast cancer!

So, Zeneca, the originator of Breast Cancer Awareness month is the manufacturer of carcinogenic petrochemicals, carcinogenic pollutants and a breast cancer drug that causes at least four different types of cancer in women, including breast cancer.  Is something wrong with this picture?

It gets worse!

Since the Breast Cancer Awareness Month spin doctors claimed that breast cancer is “simply not a preventable disease”, the focus shifted to the theme of early detection.  Women are now encouraged to get their early mammogram. At one time, only women 50 years or older were told to get this screening.  Now the campaign is targeting 40 year old and even women as young as 25. However, detecting breast cancer with mammography is not the same as protection from breast cancer.  Questions are being raised about the validity of mammograms. A mammogram is an x-ray.  The only acknowledged cause of cancer by the American Cancer Society is from radiation.  When it comes to radiation, there is no safe level of exposure.

“There is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of up to one percent for every RAD (radiation absorbed dose) unit of x-ray exposure.  Even for low dosage exposure of two RADs or less, this exposure can add up quickly for women having an annual mammography,” notes Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health.

In addition, mammography provides false tumour reports between 5 and 15 percent of the time. False positive results cause women to be re-exposed to additional X rays and create an environment of further stress, even possibly leading  to unneeded surgery.  “Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasising an existing growth,” says Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute.  Safer and even more effective diagnostic techniques like infrared thermography, have been vigorously attacked by the Breast Cancer Awareness organisations

Dr Sellman provides straightforward, practical advice on real prevention strategies in Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection,available in downloadable pdf at the bottom of the page.

Back to Cervical Cancer Prevention Week.

In 2009 after formally reviewing the evidence relating to risks and benefits of cervical screening in women under 25 years, including evidence regarding incidence and mortality in young women, the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening agreed unanimously there should be no change in the screening age as evidence showed that earlier screening could do more harm than good,citing evidence that treatment following screening in that age group can lead to an increased risk of subsequent premature births, increasing the risk of babies dying or having severe disabilities.

Six years later and the target focus age has dropped to between 12 and 18 years old, with suggestions that that be lowered to 9 years old. Maybe the risks seen by the committee have been eliminated. One would hope so.

A glance at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust sponsor list sees the names GlaxoSmithKline and Merck & Co. These giant pharmaceutical companies are the manufacturers of Cervarix and Gardasil, the two government-mandated vaccines for HPV.

A quick look at Merck’s history reveals that in April 2012, Merck was ordered to pay $321m for criminal activities regarding their painkiller drug, Vioxx. In addition to that, Merck paid more than $600 million to the federal government, 43 states and the District of Columbia for a wider range of improprieties. Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after it was found to cause heart attacks, strokes and death. Estimates (from the complicit FDA and from independent sources) put the death toll due to Vioxx between 1999 and 2003 to between 27,785 and 55,000. Dr David Graham, the FDA scientist who blew the whistle on Merck and the FDA also revealed that the expensive painkiller had caused 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks – 30-40% of which were fatal.

$1 billion dollars in fines and compensation sounds like a lot of money, until compared with the fact that Vioxx generated nearly $2.5 billion dollars in sales per year during the time it was on the market.

Last year also saw GlaxoSmithKline paying out $3 billion after being found guilty of criminal fraud. A nine year investigation revealed GSK illegally marketing drugs, forging drug safety data, bribing doctors to promote dangerous and expensive drugs, ripping off Medicare and Medicaid, and lying about the effectiveness and safety of drugs.

The above examples are not isolated cases, merely the latest in a history of criminal practices. In fact, as has been pointed out, it seems standard business practice for big pharmaceutical companies to produce, market and sell dangerous drugs, with legal settlements being factored into the plans, settlements that invariably turn out to be thin slices of massive profits reaped at the cost of peoples health and lives.

For a number of years both Cervarix and Gardasil have come under intense criticism from independent scientists and researchers, due to an ever-increasing catalogue of adverse effects associated with the drugs, such as the young girl left unable to talk or walk after getting the Cervarix vaccine 

news007a

In August, 2011, in 49 Dead, Others Hospitalized After Gardasil HPV Vaccine, Anthony Gucciardi reported that

“Following controversy over U.S. state legislatures requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck’s vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), a number of severe side effects have been observed along with the recent deaths of 3 young girls. Gardasil is now marketed towards men and women up to age 26 as a “preventative” tool against anal cancer. As of January 2010, Gardasil has been linked to 49 deaths and countless side-effects, while cancer associated with HPV is only responsible for 1% of all cancer deaths. Why then, is it being recommended to millions worldwide?

As of June 2009, 15 million girls have been injected with the Gardasil vaccine. Out of 15 million people, 49 deaths may not seem like a lot. Unfortunately, however, there are many more cases of extreme side effects from the vaccination. In fact, the amount of adverse reactions was so high that Judicial Watch, a group that claims to expose government corruption, was forced to step in. Between May 2009 and September 2010 alone, Gardasil was linked to 3,589 harmful reactions and 16 deaths. Of the 3,589 adverse reactions, many were debilitating. Permanent disability was the result of 213 cases; 25 resulted in the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; and there were 789 other “serious” reports according to FDA documents

In seeking answers to why adolescent girls are suffering devastating health damage after being injected with HPV vaccines, SANE Vax, Inc, a vaccination research and watchdog group, decided to have vials of Gardasil tested in a laboratory. As SANE Vax explained in its announcement, these tests were conducted after an adolescent girl experienced “acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours” of being injected with an HPV vaccine. They found over a dozen Gardasil vaccine vials to be contaminated with rDNA of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). The vials were purchased in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Poland and France, indicating Gardasil contamination is a global phenomenon.

250123_10151418716898998_961007685_nThis means that adolescents who are injected with these vials are being contaminated with a biohazard – the rDNA of HPV. As if that wasn’t bad enough, not only is the rDNA found in Gardasil genetically engineered, the rDNA from both HPV-11 and HPV-18, were described as “firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.”

That aluminum is also found in vaccines should be frightening all by itself, given that aluminum should never be injected into the human body (it’s toxic when ingested, and it specifically damages the nervous system). With the added discovery that the aluminum adjuvant also carries rDNA fragments of two different strains of Human Papillomavirus, this now reaches the level of a dangerous biohazard – something more like a biological weapon rather than anything resembling medicine.

As Dr. Lee, the pathologist who ran the laboratory tests identifying the biohazard contamination of Gardasil said:

“Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil is not ‘natural’ DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) – genetically engineered – to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms. Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA.”

HPVHoax250Anyone wanting to know more about the subject should read the special NaturalNews report The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed (link at the foot of the page).

NaturalNews has obtained documents from the FDA and other sources, which reveal that the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.

NaturalNews has also learned that HPV vaccines have been proven to be flatly worthless in clearing the HPV virus from women who have already been exposed to HPV (which includes most sexually active women), calling into question the scientific justification of mandatory “vaccinate everyone” policies.

Furthermore, this story reveals evidence that the vaccine currently being administered for HPV — Gardasil — may increase the risk of precancerous cervical lesions by an alarming 44.6 percent in some women. The vaccine, it turns out, may be far more dangerous to the health of women than doing nothing at all.

If true, this information reveals details of an enormous public health fraud being perpetrated on  people. The health and safety of tens of millions of young girls is at stake here, and what this NaturalNews investigative report reveals is that HPV vaccinations may not only be medically useless; they may also be harmful to the health of the young girls receiving them.

Incidentally, it’s not only girls that are being targeted. Gardasil is now marketed towards men and women up to age 26 as a “preventative” tool against anal cancer, and it has been recommended for pre-sexually active boys.

Update – A GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) funded study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases (published online in March 2013) has revealed that HPV infection, resulting in naturally acquired human papilloma virus (HPV) antibodies, reduces the risk for new infection and cervical abnormalities linked to cancer in non-HPV vaccinated subjects.

The Vaccination Concept Itself

Although what’s been discussed so far are specific vaccines, many of their aspects, and worse, are replicated by other vaccines. Given the toxic cocktail of vaccine ingredients, it’s not surprising.Vaccines have several components: 1. Micro-organisms, either bacteria or viruses, thought to be causing certain infectious diseases and which the vaccine is supposed to prevent. These are whole-cell proteins or just the broken-cell protein envelopes, and are called antigens. 2. Chemical substances which are supposed to enhance the immune response to the vaccine, called adjuvants. 3. Chemical substances which act as preservatives and tissue fixatives, which are supposed to halt any further chemical reactions and putrefaction (decomposition or multiplication) of the live or attenuated (or killed) biological constituents of the vaccine. Vaccine ingredients include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium hydroxide, ammonium sulphate, monkey kidney tissue, canine kidney tissue, fetal bovine serum albumen, human aborted fetal cells, human diploid lung fibroblast cells, squalene, phenol, Tween 80, MSG, hydrolysed porcine gelatin, peanut oil, alcohols, etc, etc, etc.

But it’s not just the ingredients, the concept itself is fundamentally flawed, as Dr Richard Moskowitz describes in plain terms in Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity, an extract from his book Dissent in Medicine. Using the example of an infant vaccine he says,

Childhood illnesses like measles, mumps and chicken pox produce symptoms which reflect the efforts of the immune system to clear the virus from the blood, which it does by sending it out exactly the same way it came in. When a child recovers from measles, you have true immunity. That child will never, never again get the measles no matter how many epidemics he is exposed to. Furthermore, he will respond vigorously and dramatically to whatever infectious agents he is exposed to. The side benefit of that disease is a nonspecific immunity that charges or primes his immune system so that it can better respond to the subsequent challenges that it is going to meet in the future.

Now, by contrast, when you take an artificially attenuated measles vaccine and introduce it directly into the blood and bypass the portal of entry, there is no period of sensitization of the portal of entry tissues. There is no silent period of incubation in the lymph nodes. Furthermore, the virus itself has been artificially weakened in such a way that there is no generalized inflammatory response. By tricking the body in this way, we have done what the entire evolution of the immune system seems to be designed to prevent. We have placed the virus directly and immediately into the blood and given it free and immediate access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

The result of this, indeed, is the production of circulating antibodies, which can be measured in the blood. But that antibody response occurs purely as an isolated technical feat, without any generalized inflammatory response or any noticeable improvement in the general health of the organism. Quite the contrary, in fact. I believe that the price we pay for those antibodies is the persistence of virus elements in the blood for long periods of time, perhaps permanently, which in turn presupposes a systematic weakening of our ability to mount an effective response not only to measles but also to other infections. So far from producing a genuine immunity, the vaccine may act by interfering with or suppressing the immune response as a whole in much the same way as radiation and chemotherapy, corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs do.

Chronic long-term persistence of viruses and other proteins within cells of the immune system produce chronic disease. We know that live viruses are capable of surviving or remaining latent within host cells for years without continually provoking acute disease. They do this by attaching their own genetic material to the cell, and replicate along with the cell. That allows the host cell to continue its normal functioning but continuing to synthesize the viral protein.

Latent viruses produce various kinds of diseases. Because the virus is now permanently incorporated within the genetic material of the cell, the only appropriate immunological response is to make antibodies against the cell, no longer against the virus. So, immunizations promote certain types of chronic diseases. And far from providing a genuine immunity, the vaccines are actually a form of immunosuppression.

 __________

The vaccine industry, of course, has a long and dark history of its vaccines being contaminated with cancer-causing viruses and other frightening contaminants. The following video is an interview in which Merck scientist Dr. Hillerman openly admits that polio vaccines were widely contaminated with SV40 viruses that cause cancer.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=edikv0zbAlU&gl

The politics and profits involved in the medical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the media industry become more obvious and prevalent every day. Before taking any pharmaceutical product, you should take ownership of your own health. Conduct your own research on the ingredients and side-effects. Find out where your doctor gets his information. Many of them are paid to promote specific pharmaceutical products. Others (like, I presume, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust) simply get their information from sources they trust such as drug companies and other organisations. Still, others are told by their legal departments not to speak out.

 

Some Useable Information

The following is allegedly from the John Hopkins Establishment, a world-renowned, well-respected medical establishment, although some including, allegedly again, the JHE refute any connection. It’s included here because of the nature of the information and advice. Saying that though, I would point out that some of the terminology has been changed, as I felt it was misleading. The original reference to ‘cancer cells’ has been changed to read ‘cancerous cells’. There is no such thing as a cancer cell, cells can become cancerous. The distinction is important.

1. Every person has cancerous cells in the body. These cancerous cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion.. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancerous cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancerous cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancerous cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.

3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancerous cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancerous cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancerous cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancerous cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancerous cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancerous cells by not feeding them with the foods they needs to multiply..

*Cancerous CELLS FEED ON:

a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancerous cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses, but only in very small amounts.

Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells are being starved.

c. cancerous cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment.. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup.

13. Cancerous cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancerous cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancerous cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy cancer cells.. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancerous cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancerous cells.

Fortunately there is a wealth of accessible information online about the various types of treatment available for cancer, both conventional and alternative. A following post will provide a catalogue of recommended links.

Knowledge is power. Your ignorance is their bliss.

The following are links to source and additional material.

Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection

Mammograms cause breast cancer

Tamoxifen

Dr. David Graham’s Vioxx testimony

GlaxoSmithKline pleads guilty to criminal fraud charges, pays massive $3 billion in fines

GlaxoSmithKline information

The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

Vaccine Ingredients

HPV vaccine researcher blasts marketing

Cervarix Vaccine Programme to Cost UK Government £5.5 Billion

Gardasil Contains HPV DNA Bound to Insoluble Aluminum Adjuvant a New Chemical With Untested ToxicityWatch movie online The Transporter Refueled (2015)

Gardasil page of Vaccination Liberation – Huge information resource

Gardasil

Vioxx

The Secret Origin of AIDS and HIV: How scientists produced the most horrifying plague of all time – and then covered it up.

The following sites provide information and links that can be utilised by anyone to protect and maintain their own health and that of their family and friends.

Natural News

greenmedinfo.com

What Doctors Don’t Tell You

What Women Must Know

Off The Radar (New Zealand-based information “one stop shop”)

Natural Cures ‘They’ Don’t Want you to Know About (Much recommended exposé of health industry practice)

Something for my Sisters II

Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)

by Dawn Prate

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman’s chances of survival by at least 17 percent.

The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a 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

Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent 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 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or “false negatives.” Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.

Radiation Risks

Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.

 

(NaturalNews) A new report released by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement reveals that Americans’ exposure to radiation has increased more than 600 percent over the last three decades. Most of that increase has come from patients’ exposure to radiation through medical imaging scans such as CT scans and mammograms.

According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.

Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.

Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. 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.

Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.

The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because “the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.” Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.

Navigating the Statistics

While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40 percent in the United States.

Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases. While the matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms.

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. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.

Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they may even do more harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.

New Screening Technologies

While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.

Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.

The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:

Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

In his book, “Preventing Breast Cancer,” Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman’s genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23

“The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination,” the panel explained. “Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537

No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23

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 the 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

A number of “cancer societies” argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each – – are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21

Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman’s breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540

Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104

Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132

The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI’s assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI’s continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI’s failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544

High Rate of False Positives—mammography’s high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these “callbacks” result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

“Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure,” continued the panel. “Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.”
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, “We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%.”
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467

Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of “missed tumors,” resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42

Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305

Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123

As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject’s chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled “About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic” (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
Dr Isadore Rosenfeld’s Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47

In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12

One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57

One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233

Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
Woman’s Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53

Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn’t as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there’s not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234 For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient’s body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587