Mammograms

Your Greatest Weapon Against Breast Cancer (Not Mammograms)

---

By Dr. Mercola

According to the National Breast Cancer Foundation, 200,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed each year in the US, making it three times more common than other gynecological cancers.

Breast cancer will claim the lives of 40,000 people this year.

In fact, the only type of cancer that claims the lives of more women is lung cancer.

Even more disturbing is the speed at which breast cancer rates have risen over the past 5 decades.

In 1960, one in 20 women was diagnosed—but today, it is one in seven.

The following are some important facts about this type of cancer:1

• Breast cancer is the leading cause of death for women age 40 to 55.
• 15 percent of all breast cancers occur in women under age 45; in this age group, breast cancers are more aggressive and have lower recovery rates.
• 80 percent of breast lumps are NON-cancerous.
• 70 percent of breast cancers are found through breast self-exams.
• About 80 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history of breast cancer.

The toxic effects of mammogram radiation are finally being acknowledged as a significant factor in the development of breast cancer. Several recent studies have clearly shown that breast cancer screenings may be causing women more harm than good.

A new study published in the British Medical Journal (December 2011)confirmed that breast cancer screening may cause women harm, especially during the early years after they start screening.2 This harm is largely due to surgeries, such as lumpectomies and mastectomies, and other (often unnecessary) interventions. The study highlights losses in quality of life from false positive results and unnecessary treatment.

Fortunately, we're beginning to see the initial stirrings of change, as this latest report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) shows, which calls into question the role environmental exposure may be playing in the development of breast cancer.3 The IOM committee is absolutely correct in calling for more research into the risks of various environmental exposures over the course of a woman's lifetime. Isn't it ironic that the mammogram—the principle diagnostic test given to women to help detect and prevent breast cancer—is responsible for increasing women's risk for developing it?

Mammogram Radiation is Much More Damaging than a Chest X-Ray

Mammograms use ionizing radiation at a relatively high dose, which can contribute to the mutations that can lead to breast cancer. You can get as much radiation from one mammogram as you would from 1,000 chest X-rays. Mammography also compresses your breasts tightly, which can lead to a dangerous spread of cancerous cells, should they exist. Dr. Samuel Epstein, one of the world's top cancer experts, has stated:

"The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening."

Breast Cancer Screening May Lead to Unnecessary Treatments and Surgeries that Can Actually SHORTEN Your Lifespan

Another concern is that mammograms carry an unacceptably high rate of false positives—up to six percent. False positives can lead to expensive repeat screenings, exposing you to even more radiation, and can sometimes result in unnecessary invasive procedures such as biopsies, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. In fact, if you undergo breast screenings, you have a 35 percent increased risk of having surgery.4 If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in your breast, the next step is typically a biopsy.

This involves taking a small amount of tissue from your breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. These biopsies are notoriously inaccurate, often leading to misdiagnosis and unnecessary treatments, not to mention undue emotional stress.

Just thinking you may have breast cancer, when you really do not, focuses your mind on fear and disease, and the stress is actually enough to trigger an illness. It is well established that stress has damaging effects on your health. So, a false positive diagnosis can be damaging to your health from multiple angles. In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review of breast cancer screening and mammography, the authors wrote:5

"Screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. This means that for every 2000 women screened for 10 years, one will have her life prolonged, and 10 healthy women who would not have been diagnosed if they had not been screened, will be treated unnecessarily."

Unfortunately, the disturbing scientific findings do not end there. This means that by having these breast cancer screenings, you may be shortening your life, rather than extending it. In reference to the 2011 BMJ findings about the damage being done by breast cancer screening, Sayer Ji of Green Med Info wrote:6

"What is perhaps most disturbing about these findings is that, while they clearly call into question the safety and effectiveness of breast screenings, the studies upon which they are based use an outdated radiation risk model, which minimizes by a factor of 4 to 5 the carcinogenicity ... What this indicates, therefore, is that breast screenings are not just 'causing more harm than good,' but are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women."

Mammograms are NOT Really Saving Lives, Research Says

In September 2010, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals, published the first study in years7 to examine the effectiveness of mammograms. Their findings are a far cry from what most public health officials would have you believe.The bottom line is that mammograms seem to have reduced cancer death rates by only 0.4 deaths per 1,000 women—an amount so small it might as well be zero. Put another way, 2,500 women would have to be screened over 10 years for a single breast cancer death to be avoided.

So, not only are mammograms unsafe, but they are NOT saving women's lives, as was commonly thought. Past research has also shown that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over physical examination alone. If mammograms won't save you, then what will?

Cancer's Greatest Enemy: Your Immune System

Recent discoveries suggest that your immune system is designed to eliminate cancer. However, when you implement caustic medical interventions (such as radiation and chemotherapy) that damage your immune system so that it cannot respond appropriately, you are destroying your body's best chances for healing. Unfortunately, mammograms tend to increase the likelihood that women will undertake medical procedures that interfere with this natural healing ability. There is now a great deal of scientific evidence supporting the theory that your own immune system is your best cancer weapon:

• Individuals with liver or ovarian cancer survive longer if their killer T cells have invaded their tumors.
• A 2005 study showed that colon cancers that most strongly attract T cells are the least likely to recur after treatment.8
• Another study found that 60 percent of precancerous cervical cells (found on PAP tests) revert to normal within a year,and 90 percent revert within three years.9
• Some kidney cancers are known to regress, even when highly advanced.

The presence of white blood cells in and around a tumor is often an indication that the cancer will go into remission—or even vanish altogether—as this New York Times article explains.10 And breast cancer is no exception.

Thirty Percent of Breast Tumors Go Away on their Own

According to breast surgeon Susan Love of UCLA, at least 30 percent of tumors found on mammograms would go away if you did absolutely nothing.11 These tumors appear to be destined to stop growing on their own, shrink, and even go away completely. This begs the question—how many cancer cures that are attributed to modern interventions like chemotherapy and radiation, are actually just a function of the individual's immune system ridding itself of the tumor on its own? How many people get over cancer in spite of the treatments that wreak havoc on the body, rather than because of them? It is impossible to definitively answer this question.

But it is safe to say that the strength of your immune system is a major factor in determining whether or not you will beat cancer, once you have it. Nearly everyone has cancerous and pre-cancerous cells in their body by middle age, but not everyone develops cancer. The difference lies in the robustness of each person's immune system.

Dr. Barnett Kramer of NIH12 says it's becoming increasingly clear that cancers require more than just mutations to progress. They need the cooperation of surrounding cells, certain immune responses, and hormones to fuel them. Kramer describes cancer as a dynamic process, whereas it used to be regarded as "an arrow that moved in one direction" (e.g., from bad to worse). What does this mean for you?

The better you take care of your immune system, the better it will take care of you.

One way to strengthen your immune system is to minimize your exposure to mammograms and other sources of ionizing radiation. But you can also build up your immune system DAILY by making good diet and lifestyle choices. One of the best ways to do this is by optimizing your vitamin D level.

Vitamin D: Cancer Fighter Extraordinaire

Vitamin D, a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in almost every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain. Your liver, kidney and other tissues can convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D. Your organs then use it to repair damage and eradicate cancer cells.

Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis, or cancer cell death.

When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days. The vitamin D worked as well at killing cancer cells as the toxic breast cancer drug Tamoxifen, without any of the detrimental side effects and at a tiny fraction of the cost.

I strongly recommend making sure your vitamin D level is 70 to 100ng/ml if you've received a breast cancer diagnosis. You can achieve this through direct, safe exposure to ultraviolet light, or if this is not possible, by taking an oral vitamin D3 supplement. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I am aware of, without adverse effects. Please watch my free one-hour lecture on vitamin D for more information. For a comprehensive guide to breast cancer prevention and treatment, refer to this previous article. Some of the other research-based breast cancer fighters include the following:

• Eating plenty of fresh, whole, organic vegetables, especially fermented vegetables
• Avoiding all processed foods, and minimizing sugar, grains and starchy foods
• Vitamin A plays a role in preventing breast cancer; your best sources are organic egg yolks, raw milk and butter, and beef and chicken liver (from organically raised, grass pastured animals)
• Curcumin (the active agent in turmeric) is one of the most potent tumor-inhibiting foods; black cohosh, artemisinin, green tea, kelp, cruciferous vegetables and evening primrose oil also show promise in helping to prevent breast cancer
• Getting plenty of exercise daily

If You Are Diagnosed With Early Stage Breast Cancer

In the event that you are diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, always get a second opinion—and possibly a third and fourth. I cannot stress this enough, as false positive rates are just too high and the diagnostic criteria is too subjective. Before you make any decision about treatment, and definitely before you decide to have surgery or chemotherapy, make sure your biopsy results have been reviewed by a breast specialist who is knowledgeable and experienced in that field.

The majority of breast cancer is preventable. But if you are hit with that diagnosis, don't lose hope! There is a great deal you can do to harness your body's own powerful healing abilities.

How Vitamin D Performance Testing Can Help Optimize Your Health

A robust and growing body of research clearly shows that vitamin D is absolutely critical for good health and disease prevention. Vitamin D affects your DNA through vitamin D receptors (VDRs), which bind to specific locations of the human genome. Scientists have identified nearly 3,000 genes that are influenced by vitamin D levels, and vitamin D receptors have been found throughout the human body.

Is it any wonder then that no matter what disease or condition is investigated, vitamin D appears to play a crucial role? This is why I am so excited about the D*Action Project by GrassrootsHealth. Dr. Heaney is the research director of GrassrootsHealth and is part of the design of the D*action Project as well as analysis of the research findings. GrassrootsHealth shows how you can take action today on known science with a consensus of experts without waiting for institutional lethargy. It has shown how by combining the science of measurement (of vitamin D levels) with the personal choice of taking action and, the value of education about individual measures that one can truly be in charge of their own health.

In order to spread this health movement to more communities, the project needs your involvement. This was an ongoing campaign during the month of February, and will become an annual event.

To participate, simply purchase the D*Action Measurement Kit and follow the registration instructions included. (Please note that 100 percent of the proceeds from the kits go to fund the research project. I do not charge a single dime as a distributor of the test kits.)

As a participant, you agree to test your vitamin D levels twice a year during a five-year study, and share your health status to demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient. There is a $65 fee every six months for your sponsorship of this research project, which includes a test kit to be used at home, and electronic reports on your ongoing progress. You will get a follow up email every six months reminding you "it's time for your next test and health survey."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/03/experts-say-avoid-mammograms.aspx

VonSchneider ⋅ Joined On 6/13/2010 8:27:56 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message So if you subject yourself to a mammogram, then they need to do "additional views" and "see something". Then it will be recommended that you have a biopsy, and in that biopsy they may find a speck. So when you are told you have even a speck. If YOU don't stop and take a step back and think. The nice cancer case worker nurse will work very hard to expedite your treatment by arranging and scheduling all your appointments so NO TIME is wasted in, (FORCING you along) under the guise of, saving you from this deadly disease. No one except ME and Dr. Mercola wants you to GET or even THINK ABOUT second opinions or OTHER OPTIONS. Why are supposed cancer specks "aggressive"? People are treated like they are walking time bombs. The system ENCOURAGES PANIC AND FEAR. Does this sound like the behavior of healers? Yet they will encourage panic and fear along with their "nicety nice pink ribbons" on the wall. What a nice thing, (they are hansomly reimbursed for), they are doing for YOU! Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:04:24 AM 32  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike curious7 ⋅ Joined On 3/27/2007 2:52:14 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message Yes burn you with more radiation, pierce the tumor's containment sack, and allow these dangerous cells to spread more quickly to the surrounding cells and tissue.  Our greatest ally, is good common sense.  Research, understand as much as your so called health care professional, more in fact.  For each and every illness there is a cure, and there are preventative measures we can take.  The AMA, the FDA, BIG PHARMA, the Bio-Tech Industry, all just want one thing, profit.  They are, and they will kill us to get it. Cancer is only a deadly disease if we go about a recovery the traditional way.  You know poison, slice, and burn.  It is after all nothing more than your life and well being on the line. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 3:34:37 PM 9  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike Try try again ⋅ Joined On 8/12/2006 2:44:06 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message I guess it's been about 10 years since I started saying, "Mammograms cause cancer." I was given that "half smile," with people, especially my 2 women cousins, thinking I was a nut case. It's good to finally feel vindicated. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 4:19:13 PM 11  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike enjonn ⋅ Joined On 1/24/2011 1:44:39 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message You reminded me of gold seekers panning for gold.  The first hour, just grains of sand.  The second hour, more grains of sand.  You wonder why panning when you could have stayed home for breakfast and watched TV.  On your third hour you see a glint of speck.  Drop the speck into the palm of your hand and heft it.  Iron pyrite?  Heavier than pyrite?  Gold, gold!  This is the mother lode! Employees at the mammogram clinic sort of pan for specks.  Lack of specks hour after hour gets DEPRESSING.  Sort of like the patrol officer who never finds speedsters.  Or the attorney in a world full of good boys and girls who mind their mothers and never make a speck of trouble. I'm a bit surprised Dr Mercola made no mention at all of thermography as a safe alternative to mammo. Oh, well, Dave Brubeck's Take Five includes Blue Rondo a la Turk.  Sounds good even on a cheap stereo. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 4:23:04 PM 1  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike weehen ⋅ Joined On 8/25/2010 2:09:20 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Ugh, the entire pink ribbon thing makes me feel nauseous. So many women are given misinformation and terrified into agreeing to allow their bodies to be subjected to dreadful harm. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/5/2012 12:45:42 PM 2  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike catalinda8 ⋅ Joined On 9/23/2010 3:50:31 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message <<,The system ENCOURAGES PANIC AND FEAR>> This really does seem to be true. My brother has recently been through three scares where he was told he had life-threatening illness, but each time turned out to be a false alarm, with one doctor saying the other doctor was incompetent. But now he's a quivering mass of paranoia - who, of course, lives in terror of not going to the doctor now. Even though there was never anything wrong with him to begin with. The seed has been planted. I totally agree with you, "People are treated like they are walking time bombs." Great post. You echoed my thoughts exactly. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 9/9/2014 11:59:49 AM 0  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike

samsel ⋅ Joined On 10/7/2009 9:32:55 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Strong evidence links breast cancer to flame retardants. PBDE's or Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers used as flame retardants are known to cause cancer.  Adipose breast tissue and breast milk have been found to contain the highest concentrations of these flame retardants in the body.  PBDE's also attach to proteins which form the structural components of cells. www.mendeley.com/research/high-concentrations-polybrominated-diphenyle..       PBDE's become part of you when they are cross-linked or attached to fat and proteins.  X-rays and other energy sources break them down.  Zeng and Wang showed that UVB and Y radiation can break down brominated proteins and cause breaks in your DNA.  Double stranded breaks in DNA are hallmark to breast, ovarian, prostate and other forms of cancer.   Breast Cancer is regulated by Estrogen and the protein enzyme Aromatase.  Aromatase promotes the growth of cancers. PBDE's cause an over expression or increase in Aromatase which makes cancers proliferate or grow.  Bisphenol A, Phthalates, Atrazine herbicide and many other chemicals also cause over expression of Aromatase and cancer proliferation.  Aromatase converts the androgen testosterone to estrogen. Sydney Singer and Soma Grismaijer in the book "Dressed to Kill: The link Between Breast Cancer and Bras" studied over 4,000 woman and found: Women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer Women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day, but not to bed, had a 1 out of 7 risk Women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 52 risk Women who wore bras rarely or never had a 1 out of 168 chance of getting breast cancer Bras are one of many products that contain PBDE's.  The longer you wear a bra the longer your skin is exposed to PBDE flame retardant fabric and spandex.  The PBDE's in spandex bras are absorbed through your skin, and concentrated in breast tissue and milk. Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 6:32:54 AM 24  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike samsel ⋅ Joined On 10/7/2009 9:32:55 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message PBDE flame retardants leach from clothing and spandex, they are not washed out after a few washings.  Mattresses, bedding, curtains, computers, car interiors, packaging and more contain PBDE's which are continually released over a long period of time. Research shows that X-rays, UVB wavelengths of light and even microwave radiation are capable of causing double stranded breaks in DNA and breakdown of brominated proteins. It is interesting from a visual perspective as seen on a graph that the lineal rise in cancers i.e breast, prostate and skin cancers seem to correlate with the linear rise in the use of PBDE's. Looking at the increases of both cancers and flame retardants from the 1970's to the present they seem to mirror each other.  For those interested in reading related technical  studies, here are a few: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../PMC1069057       clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/.../6314.full Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 7:55:19 AM 13  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike 8taj30 ⋅ Joined On 11/30/2010 7:46:08 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message In "Dressed to Kill", women who wore bras 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 7 risk. Well, I bet most women do wear a bra about 12 hours a day, and what do you know....one out of 7 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:28:00 AM 15  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike panotx ⋅ Joined On 6/20/2006 6:41:14 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Good points about the flame retardants in bras....by samsel, as usual....and the use of anti-perspirant deodorants compounds the issue greatly.....many years ago, pre-internet (1970s?) I saw a study by (I believe) either UNC or NC State which showed a huge spike in the diagnosis (and incidence?) of breast cancer that coincided with the widespread introduction of anti-perspirants to the market....I have never been able to find this but there is similar more recent data on the internet....has anyone ever seen anything like this?...maybe the cosmetics industry had it buried?.... A study published in 2003 by the European Journal of Cancer Prevention, found a correlation between earlier diagnosis of breast cancer and antiperspirant/deodorant use. A 2003 study indicated "underarm shaving with antiperspirant/deodorant use may play a role in breast cancer." 2004 and 2005 studies led by researcher Phil Darbre, hypothesizes that particular substances in deodorants, such as preservatives called parabens, or bolts such as aluminium chloride used in antiperspirants, get into the bloodstream or accumulate in breast tissue, where they enhance or emulate the effects of estrogen, which stimulates the growth of cancerous breast cells. A 2007 study found that personal care products are a potential contributor to the body burden of aluminium and newer evidence has linked breast cancer with aluminium-based antiperspirants. The bottom line is that chemicals in our environment and clothing do us harm and anything that hinders the the body's natural systems, in this case "lymph", does us great harm.... Ditch the mammmograms for thermography and self exams, get natural fiber bras w/o flame retardants and don't wear them any more than you have to....and NEVER USE AN ANTI-PERSPIRANT DEODORANT.... Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:28:33 AM 16  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike lovemywesties ⋅ Joined On 8/10/2011 9:44:52 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Samsel, as always, thanks for your expertise. I stopped wearing a bra long before I knew of or was concerned with the link to breast cancer. I just always found the damned thing confining and uncomfortable next to my skin--a contraption invented in hell--and I would peel it off the minute I got home from work. After I retired I stopped wearing bras altogether and my body has been much happier as a result. I was the same way about panty hose; I couldn't stand them. Years later I found out I have a mild sensitivity to latex and spandex, which could account for my discomfort in both cases. Quite possibly my skin was reacting to the PBDE as well. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:44:43 AM 13  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike caws ⋅ Joined On 1/12/2009 12:42:21 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message I burned my bra in 1970! Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 9:14:52 AM 14  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike curious7 ⋅ Joined On 3/27/2007 2:52:14 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message Samsel: How right you are.  Many of us do not look at the everyday products that are on the market.  Our kitchens are full of aluminum, and teflon.  Our cosmetics are full of heavy metals, not to mention antiperspirants, women wear blood restricting bras, in this rush, get it done yesterday world, we often miss the basics.  Sunshine, fresh outdoor air, a balanced diet, proper hydration, proper sun exposure, exercise, proper sleep, and a good spiritual posture.   We need to read research, ask questions, challenge our medical professionals, why, or why not.  Stay away from radiation exposure as much as possible.  These airport scanners regardless of what the FDA says present a danger to you.  If you are a heavy traveler, as annoying as it may be to have your rights physically violated go for the pat down.  Consume as much organic foods as possible, and by all means leave the GMO alone, and if you consume animal flesh, make sure it is produced truly naturally, no  GMO grain fed animals, and not animals given growth hormones, antibiotics, which in turn destroys our immune systems and steroids.   Our cell phones, the means in which our homes are wired for electricity produces EMFs, that damage our cells, toxins in our air, and water, and in ever increasing cases our very soil.  Industry has taken us to a very dangerous place, a mine field in fact.  Impure food, with MSG, plastics, even the way our clothing is processed with formaldehyde, and other chemical rinses.  Not to mention GMO cotton.  A lot I know to be concerned about, so start with your own immune system, make sure it is first rate.  Find out what strengthens your immune system, avoid that which weakens the immune system.  We cannot cover it all, but we can look out for our immune system. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 10:06:20 AM 18  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike Garlicmeister ⋅ Joined On 3/24/2011 3:21:34 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message One can simply crush natural garlic and rub it on a skin lesion to get its antimicrobial benefits but that way is not recommended because in their desperation people tend to use too much and leave it on too long, resulting in severely burning the skin.  Short term exposure is beneficial while long term intense exposure is bad.  People need to use common sense. There are two safer ways of using crushed raw non-irradiated garlic (crg) externally that result in two entirely different pathways through the body and yielding two very different sets of results because one takes advantage of allicin’s water-soluble properties and is transported around the body in the bloodstream and the other takes advantage of allicin’s fat-soluble properties and is transported around the body in the lymphatic system. The antimicrobial action of water-soluble allicin is produced by crushing firm raw natural (non-irradiated) garlic and adding it to a warm/hot bathtub and simply soaking for an hour or more, occasionally submerging fully to kill any germs on the head , hair and scalp.  It soaks through the skin and gets into circulation in the bloodstream and a continual stream is introduced into the body as long as one remains in the garlic water. Internally, the allicin goes everywhere the bloodstream goes and enough of it stays in the system long enough to be effective before the leukocytes attack it and render it useless since it is a foreign body. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 11:13:04 AM 13  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike Garlicmeister ⋅ Joined On 3/24/2011 3:21:34 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message The second approach is similar but very different.  Research at Penn State showed that Diallyl Trisulfide (DATS), produced by crushing natural raw garlic and frying it in oil, inhibited or killed (dose-dependant) skin, colon and lung cancer cells on contact.  Diallyl Disulfide (DADS) also worked but was only about 1/10th as potent.  They did not include breast cancer cells in the study but my friend's positive experience with it would seem to imply it kills breast cancer also. One can peel and crush the cloves from a bulb or two of non-irradiated average garlic and fry them in oil until the garlic particles are golden brown and then remove them and dispose of them because they are too bitter to eat.  Let the garlic-infused oil cool to a comfortably warm temperature and rub the oil all over the breasts and let it soak in.   Because DATS is fat soluble and too large to pass through the capillary walls, it flows into the lymphatic system, which the breasts are laced with and the DATS simply kills or inhibits the growth of any cancer cells it encounters preventing metastasis as well as reducing the size of any tumors. A friend of mine and his girlfriend recently used these techniques to reduce a lump in the breast by 95%. For a more detailed discussion of these things please visit my website gourmetgarlicgardens.com/health.htm Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 11:14:16 AM 13  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike MannaFood ⋅ Joined On 9/7/2011 7:22:00 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message Do men's white t-shirts contain these flame retardants PBDE's ?  I've noticed that you hear a lot more about breast cancer in men in the news lately.  Obviously, they aren't wearing bras. lol Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 11:54:05 AM 7  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike dividingcricker ⋅ Joined On 2/25/2012 10:40:20 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message thats very compelling evidence, wonder if this flame retardent in childrens clothing bedding has been studied...was also wondering why they don t have a mri to do breast exams...maybe that do no harm clause should be looked at a little harder.i was just reading a book about iron disease hemochromatosis ,its has some very interesting studies..on this search i came across a ytube site which they took cerial (fortified) smached it up in a ziplock bag added water,then they took a magnet needed the mush cerial with a magnet on the out side.. they then cut the bag around the magnet...washed then dried exposing the iron (a lot of iron) it looked like metal shavings....I wonder how good that is for our body,,,what kind of diseases -cancers bacteria  viruses and fungus all grow in a high iron enviroment...i m just a laymen no backgroung in science  no phd no dr not even a bs but whos looking out for us....just seems like nobody..... Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 12:09:51 PM 6  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike Patrick McGean ⋅ Joined On 12/18/2006 8:07:57 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message According to Vincent Price in the movie "Mondo Cane" the bra was invented in Egypt just in time for Cleopatra to wow the Romans.  No PBDEs back in Egypt, no breast cancer.  But I am surprised that both Dr. Mercola and Samsel missed the key, we are what we eat.  In a study completed in the UK in 2000 28,000 women not only diagnosed but treated with radiation , surgery and chemotherapy only added sulfur to their diet, and not one had a re-occurrence of their breast cancer, and none died. Cancer occurs when you can not get the cellular trash out of our bodies even our breasts.  My son's cancer was testicular, breast or reproductive cell cancer and he did not even wear a jock strap, but we let eat him eat poorly. We are what we eat, gee where is the sulfur? Sulfur is how the plastics industry keeps all of the PBDEs and other plastics out of our biology when they use them but we get no sulfur. Dr. Mercola's time line ignores the use of chemical fertilizers, 1954. Samsels point is interesting but some of our women who had breast cancer and still have their breasts wore cotton bras with circular stitching "Madonna" no spandex.  Even the chemicals in deodorants, what takes out the trash?   The sulfur we don't have in our diet, sulfates, sulfites and sulfides, we can not store sulfur in any form.  Add it twice a day until we repair the soil. Regarding Dr. Mercola comments on radiation and breast cancer (fear) all radiation kills cells, Pub Med says often "sulfur can protect and repair the damage of radiation exposure."  This is not an excuse for a mammogram.  We are what we eat, in this case what we have not had to eat, the sulfur missing so the health industry can flourish at our expense.  Our immune system is sulfur based amino acids. Boycott GE, Boycott Siemens and add sulfur to your diet, Cleopatra ate well and did not have breast cancer neither should you.  Sulfur can address stupidity, fear is stupid and it kills. Got breasts?  Get sulfur! Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 12:14:11 PM 5  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike samsel ⋅ Joined On 10/7/2009 9:32:55 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message @Mannafood:  Yes, in 1953 Congress passed the "Flammable Fabrics Act" requiring fabric including cotton to have flame resistance.  Infants and children's sleepwear are particularly problematic as the chemicals in the fabrics can cause genetic damage early in life.  Mens underwear and socks would be a close fitting source of flame retardant fabric for skin absorption.  Some flame retardants are coated onto the fabric, synthetics can also have the retardant added to raw material before thread and fabric production.  Flame retardant is added to the spandex liquid before it is 'spun' or passes through spinnerets where solvents are evaporated and curing of the synthetic rubber takes place. I worked on the final process for PBDE flame retardants In 1972 in the Product Development group at ADL before becoming socially conscious and an environmental activist.  A close friend from India was the inventor.  They were originally developed to fire proof Spandex elastomer in Astronaut Space clothing. This was after the tragic fire which took the lives of the Apollo crew on the launch pad in the late 60s. The system was intended to be used exclusively in Space clothing. Arthur D. Little, Inc. had multiple contracts with the US Army and the NFPA. One of the contracts was to solve problems with 'Choppers' used in the Vietnam War that were inadvertently killing soldiers from out of control onboard fires during fire fights. The system was put into foam cushions, and other flammable materials. The NFPA wanted our system put into everything from Children's clothing, Woman's Bras. Bedding, Curtains, Carpeting, Plastics, Packaging virtually anything that can burn. According to EPA assistant Director Stephen A. Owens in a letter directed to me on May 9, 2011, Deca Bromo Diphenyl Ether is scheduled to be voluntarily discontinued. "The principle US manufacturers and importer of c-decaPBE voluntarily committed to phase out the manufacture and import of all uses by December 31, 2013." Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 12:39:14 PM 10  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike Aaltrude ⋅ Joined On 4/18/2007 8:49:48 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message Wearing a bra causes me to develop an upper back ache hense I stopped wearing them early on. It seems I can be thankful for the quirk in my build that causes this discomfort to develop when wearing a bra. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 1:02:27 PM 4  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike Jasper0 ⋅ Joined On 10/23/2010 9:09:55 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Toxic flame retardants are in the IKEA matrasses in USA and UK for safety reasons. If you buy the same matrasses at Ikea in Europe there are no flame retardants and you pay 100 less for the same matrass. In continental Europe those flame retardans are banned(on matrasses and clothes). Most people who die in a fire die from the smoke, not from the fire. A smoke alarm, not smoking in your bed and knowing where the emergency exit in you (hotel) room is important for your safety, not a toxic retardant on you matrass which will poison you while you are asleep. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 4:54:08 PM 2  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike enjonn ⋅ Joined On 1/24/2011 1:44:39 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message @Garlicmeister - You presented impressive ability of allicin to kill bacteria, but in your new post you presented anti-cancer properties of garlic.  I have always enjoyed garlic fried in oil, but I thought frying destroyed any health properties.  I'm glad to know I'm wrong about that.  Thanks! Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 4:55:17 PM 4  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike weehen ⋅ Joined On 8/25/2010 2:09:20 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Thank you, now I know my strange distrust of standard sleepwear for my kids was not misplaced!  I have been putting them in organic cotton "clothes" for bedtime, since I hate how most sleepwear is synthetic and doesn't breathe, but to consider flame retardants makes me doubly happy to continue this practice and reject "nightwear" for bedtime. Now I'm thinking about their mattresses too....ugh. Almost certain to be full of flame retardants. Scary about the bras too. Personally, I hate not wearing a bra, so I will have to see what I can come up with that is safe...would love recommendations from others. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/5/2012 1:30:31 PM 4  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike MollyMalone ⋅ Joined On 2/27/2011 2:12:09 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Believe it or not, you can make your own bras and this gives you a lot of choices. Search the internet for patterns, I found one online. Try all the makers you know, too: McCalls, Simplicity, Butterick, Vogue, Style, Burda, New Look, anything you can think of. How about Vintage patterns? Re-enacting patterns? They're out there. If you're like me and don't like to sew, hire a seamstress - your health and your life are worth this small investment. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 10/16/2012 7:16:46 PM 0  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike nadyae ⋅ Joined On 12/10/2010 9:50:02 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Two year ago I found a swollen nodule in my right breast. My doctor sent me to do mammogram but after reading Dr. Mercola’s articles about it I refuse and did ultrasound.  They told me come back and check it again in 6 month. During that time I try alternative treatments on my swollen nodule and it got a little bit smaller but did not go away completely. Then one day I was reading Dr. Mercola’s article about cell phones and radiation, and that we should not care it too close to our body. All that time I was caring my cell phone in my purse on my right shoulder. I thought maybe there is a connection. I decided to move it to my left shoulder. The swell in my nodule in right breast went away but I started have pain in my left breast.  Now when I noticed that I care my purse with my hand.  The pain and swollen nodule went away.   Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 12:59:20 PM 21  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike curious7 ⋅ Joined On 3/27/2007 2:52:14 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message We men should not feel that this is just a woman problem, some men have been victims of breast cancer as well.  So we men need to pay attention as well, and not just for the sake of our mothers, sisters wives, and daughters. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 3:44:04 PM 4  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike sayerji ⋅ Joined On 3/26/2008 8:42:50 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message The evidence against breast screenings keeps piling up.  A Norwegian study* published last month indicates that over-diagnosis is occurring at epidemic proportions. Having tracked breast cancer diagnoses between 1991-2009, in a period when hormone replacement use actually declined, the researchers found breast cancer increased from 2000 to 2750 cases. Moreover, 300 of the cancers were classified as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) -- a form of breast cancer that a growing body of research indicates may not be cancer at all:articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/09/x-ray-mammograp.. It appears breast screenings will go the way of PSA screenings, and if evidence means anything any longer in the conventional "evidence-based" medical model, women will no longer be coerced into undergoing an inherently dangerous preventive measure that causes the very condition it purports to prevent and treat. *www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/breast-screenings-creating-epidemic-over-dia.. Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 6:01:42 AM 21  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike SuperKK ⋅ Joined On 11/26/2010 5:41:40 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message The American public has been misled into equating early diagnosis with prevention.  This leads to the protocol of diagnosis followed by (harsh) treatment.  The correct protocol is prevention if at all possible, or cause removal followed by (mild) treatment.  The former is profitable, while the latter is not. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:00:58 AM 17  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike VonSchneider ⋅ Joined On 6/13/2010 8:27:56 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message We have a billboard in my community that is of a young gal below the head view in a t-shirt like this. Are we trying to scare the young girls early too?  www.cafepress.com/+one_in_seven_breast_cancer_aw_womens_pink_tshirt,29..   Breat cancer awareness, scare the 7 year olds before their breasts have even grown. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:23:00 AM 9  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike curious7 ⋅ Joined On 3/27/2007 2:52:14 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message Yet for the sake of money the so called freest nation in the world is continuing to drag up the rear, continuing to stick to 70 year old beliefs.  I guess dollars have a blinding effect.  Love thy neighbor as thyself, is just a now meaningless saying. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 3:39:57 PM 5  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike lynnjack35 ⋅ Joined On 8/19/2006 11:58:55 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message In Dec 2010 I was diagnosed with LCIS after I found a small lump. The surgeon explained my options and spoke in a very cavalier way about mastectomy being one of the possibilities. I opted for a lumpectomy (it required a second one to get clear margins). Cancer hadn't spread to the sentinel node, so chemo wasn't needed, but radiation and Tamoxifen were. I read everything about cancer I could find (e.g., Suzanne Somers book, Dr. Mercola, Dr. Russell Blaylock’s Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients). I was irritated to find 6 weeks of radiation was “required.” I didn’t get it – 6 weeks is always prescribed, but my tumor was one of the smallest the surgeon had ever removed (his words), so why did I need 6 weeks? I asked, “What is this – one size fits all?” The response? “Well, you could do 3 weeks.” It’s called the “Canadian Protocol,” and it didn’t require double the radiation for half the time. Why didn’t he offer that option to me first? Because 6 weeks would be more lucrative for the doctors? I decided against radiation. Then the oncologist stressed how important it was for me to take Tamoxifen, as it would reduce my risk of re-occurrence by 50%. I researched carefully and found that Tamoxifen’s side effects included blood clots and uterine cancer. I read that my risk was only 1.5%, and taking the drug would reduce my risk to 0.7%. Well, he didn’t lie to me – that was a 50% reduction. I decided against Tamoxifen. My treatment: taking good supplementation, including Vitamin D and reserveratrol (a natural aromatase inhibitor); working hard to curb my sweet tooth; juicing fresh fruits and vegetables and making green drinks in my Vitamix; working to eliminate stress in my life, keeping a positive attitude; and thanking God every day for so many blessings. The oncologist doesn't believe in thermography, but I found an office that offers it nearby, and I'll probably have to pay for it myself. I’m 76 years young and still cancer free. Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 9:49:42 AM 20  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike Har_Don ⋅ Joined On 1/30/2010 10:55:50 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Good for you, Lynnjack!  I'm 11 years younger than you, and I sure hope I'm in as good of health as you when I catch up to you. . .  {;-) Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 11:32:04 AM 1  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike jessicarichards ⋅ Joined On 1/17/2011 9:14:12 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message YOU GO GIRL! I'm approaching 5 years on from a breast cancer diagnosis, fit and well and no med treatment whatsoever! Bless you. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 2:07:40 PM 1  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike VonSchneider ⋅ Joined On 6/13/2010 8:27:56 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Like your story. :) Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/13/2012 8:04:16 PM 0  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike WellAware ⋅ Joined On 6/20/2006 7:35:14 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Though this information is very important, terming the title in war terms only helps to keep our minds in diabolical mode, which is NOT healthy. Please consider this, people, when you are titling your articles.  Vitamin D is not a weapon.  It is, however, an extraordinary substance, and even calling it a vitamin is technically incorrect. I am profoundly grateful for the information passed along through mercola.com.  Please accept my critique in the spirit in which it is given.   I don't come here to be in war mode; I come here to figure out how NOT to always be fighting something or someone.......to figure out what to embrace in my life, what to invest my hard earned money in.  What to go TOWARD, and what to turn away FROM. Have a good day. And I am sorry the shipping of product is so problematic........not good PR, for sure. Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 5:37:23 AM 18  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike VonSchneider ⋅ Joined On 6/13/2010 8:27:56 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Very nicely put. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:16:37 AM 2  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike forbiddenhealing ⋅ Joined On 2/21/2011 9:51:43 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message True, the American way of force is the wrong approach. Warrior mentalities are a simian throwback, used only by those lacking problem solving finesse. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:17:16 AM 11  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike Mercola.com Tony R ⋅ Joined On 4/25/2011 12:05:40 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Most people also think that vitamin D is really a vitamin, but in reality, the active form of vitamin D is one of the most potent hormones in your body, and regulates more genes and bodily functions than any other hormone yet discovered. Vitamin D is produced as a pro-hormone in your skin after sunlight exposure, and is then converted to the potent hormone form.  In addition, vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis, or cancer cell death, thus making it an effective tool to fight cancer.  articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/04/why-this-vitami.. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 9:08:18 AM 7  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike RubySage ⋅ Joined On 5/6/2010 12:22:46 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message We always hear (as in the last post) the phrase "fight cancer". Perhaps a more effective mindset would involve "seeking balance". Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 2:04:53 PM 2  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike lstk8888 ⋅ Joined On 3/3/2010 6:29:46 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message What I learned; getting into war mode, fighting a battle, pitting yourself against something, sets up MORE energy into that "battle". Putting more energy into something is a way to get it to manifest more thoroughly in your life. Love however, transforms energy. Once you stop resisting and fighting something, is when you can start to transform it. I'm not saying to love your cancer. That is simplistic and naive. I'm saying to love your body, give it the energy it needs to transform something unhealthy into something healthy. Put your energy into loving and healing, not fighting a battle. I have known many women that have had cancer. One comes to mind, a manager I had. Very nice, petite, a nurse, maybe in her fifties. She made it a point to tell us not to worry. She scheduled her treatments on the weekend so she would be back to work on Monday. I said to her, maybe you should be more concerned about what YOU need to do to heal and not worry about us so much. We'll be fine. She didn't listen. I didn't know how much to push it. She has since passed from cancer. Another was an artist, a potter, very talented. I met her as her hair was just starting to come back in from the chemo. I watched her eat fast food, soda. I saw how over weight she was. I tried to talk to her. But what can I offer as someone that has never had to go through a cancer diagnosis of my own? Can I say, "You just can't eat that crap and expect to go on living!" Maybe I should have. I found out she has passed also. My mother had breast cancer twice. She's 81 now. I figure there's a chance I'll get it. I feel/put my attention inside my body. I ask, what can I do for you to keep you healthy? And then I work on doing that. I'm far from perfect. But I believe in the dialogue. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 2:51:47 PM 7  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike Try try again ⋅ Joined On 8/12/2006 2:44:06 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message WellAware: You must be thinking of things like: "War on Drugs," "War on Poverty," etc. Whenever it is put in a warlike stance, it always fails. Remember when we used to never bother to lock our doors? Do you suppose that now we wouldn't think of leaving our houses unlocked has anything to do with drugs?? Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 4:28:18 PM 4  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike enjonn ⋅ Joined On 1/24/2011 1:44:39 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message @lstk8888 - You are not saying "love your cancer"? Cancerous tissues originate from your body.  Like other parts of your body, they are loyal members.  Because cancerous tissues don't contribute to the well-being of your body, these tissues choose to die. As it turns out, choosing to die isn't enough.  Cancerous tissues need D3, and D3 allows these tissues to die.  In a most peculiar way, cancer loves you, and cancer with help of D3 achieves death.  The term for this body loyalty is "apoptosis." Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 5:24:25 PM 4  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike zimmer ⋅ Joined On 9/26/2011 1:45:17 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message I never have had a mammogram and the more I learn about it, the more convinced I am that it will never happen.  If my doctor insists, I will tell him, "I will do it the day you put your *** in the machine and have it mammogrammed and a part of the deal has to be that I watch it happening". Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 7:20:46 AM 15  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike Har_Don ⋅ Joined On 1/30/2010 10:55:50 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Good one, Zimmer!!!!!  ROFLOL!!!!!  I've never had a mammogram either.  I'll have to remember this in case my doctor ever urges me to have one. . .  {:-D Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 11:28:39 AM 2  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike simple_don ⋅ Joined On 6/25/2008 10:02:09 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message BRILLIANT RESPONSE!  Since abnormal growths from irradiating flesh can take 12-15 years to present themselves, to be on the safe side, you may want to tell him that you '... will do it 15 years after you put your *** in the machine, and we can then see if you still have your ***.   (whatever that is). Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 1:06:47 PM 9  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike weehen ⋅ Joined On 8/25/2010 2:09:20 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Same here! Teeheehee! Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/5/2012 1:39:57 PM 0  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike essexstreet ⋅ Joined On 4/16/2009 1:06:49 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message Mu doctor gave me a look of contempt when I asked that D3 be included in my blood work.  He is not for long in my life. Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 10:54:48 AM 14  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike forbiddenhealing ⋅ Joined On 2/21/2011 9:51:43 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message   The immune system runs on electrons like the rest of healthy biochemistry. Cancerous cells come and go until one doesn't. That means electron charge was lacking and so oxygen was not delivered, mitochondria shut down and went into fermentation mode and the area around became acidic further repelling oxygen....acidic hypoxia. Immune response also depends on powerful oxidation to destroy pathogens, abnormal cells and other unwanted molecules. Without antioxidant electrons, inflammatory response grows unchecked.   Radiations, toxic free radical sources, inappropriate fats imbedded in membranes, lack of electrolytes like K and Mg, lack of I and low thyroid function all diminish electron charge and oxygen delivery. Lack of electron charge also reduces fluid viscosity and circulation of blood and lymph allowing stagnant hypoxia.   The answer is to not let this chemistry proceed and to counter deficiencies with excess antioxidant electrons...and oxygen. Gobs of Vitamin C/bicarbonate, oxidizing peroxide, MMS and Iodine, and alkalizing K/Mg, even earthing begin to reverse cancers. A protocol of correcting body chemistry through nutrition, detoxification and emotional improvements completes the healing process.   curt504 ⋅ Joined On 3/6/2008 5:12:01 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message Besides raising your D levels with D3, eating Paleo (fat borne vitamins including D) and getting sunshine while having the raw ingredients in your body of plenty of cholesterol (yup D and sex hormones are manufactured from cholesterol).  Iodine is even with or perhaps ahead of D in terms of preventing sex cancers and even curing cancer.  Before "modern" and profit driven Oncology, Iodine was used to cure cancer. There's a lot on the internet to read.  Google: breast cancer iodine womens health iodine Brownstein iodine          see his book:  Iodine — Why You Need It; Why You Can't Live Without It A public research site:    http://iodine4health.com                           http://iodine4health.com/body/breast/breast.htm breastcancerchoices.org/iodineindex.html curt Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:08:33 AM 10  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   versatile ⋅ Joined On 10/16/2007 4:23:09 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message I find it interesting that we see the same responses to the scientific analysis of prostrate cancer (PSA) test from the scientific analysis of the breast cancer mammogram.  In both cases, the science demonstrates that the tests, in general, harm more patients than they help. But some of the people who were diagnosed and treated defend the tests. Obviously the ones who died because of the treatments aren't talking. Science is not perfect, but over time it does get better and better. We develop tests to detect illness that are better and better - and in some cases, those tests can become so effective that they 'detect' illness that does not exist, or does not need to be treated aggressively. Meta-analysis can demonstrate when this happens, and it clearly has done so with mammograms and PSA tests.  The nature of science is that some scientists - and many non-scientists (doctors, patients, etc) challenge the findings of science - especially when they are new and revolutionary. This is how science works. I applaud Mercola for reporting this information, and I encourage you to make your own choice, hopefully the best choice for yourself.  I will not take a PSA test - I know the danger.  I have a friend who said "I wish I had seen that info before they ripped out my prostrate." There are also many women who have had unnecessary breast surgery. I'll bet most of them think the surgery 'saved their lives'.  And would be severely traumatized to learn otherwise. Healthiness and illness is complex - and we only get one life.  I believe in Personal Health Freedom, the freedom to make your your own decisions about medical preventions (including vaccinations), tests, and treatments.  You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness.   to your health, tracy Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 6:44:08 AM 10  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   panotx ⋅ Joined On 6/20/2006 6:41:14 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message No PSA test for me....what a scam! Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:31:36 AM 6  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   panotx ⋅ Joined On 6/20/2006 6:41:14 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message @versatile, as an English major, I couldn't pass on this...."prostate" is the male gland and "prostrate" means to lie flat.... Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:41:38 AM 8  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   Garlicmeister ⋅ Joined On 3/24/2011 3:21:34 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message According to the National Cancer Institute, men who do not eat garlic in their diet have a far greater chance of developing prostate cancer than those who do.  One simple thing, crushing and cooking garlic in with your meals is a delicious way to prevent prostate cancer. Although I have not read of any similar finding about breast cancer,my guess is that it will do the same thing in preventing breast cancer, along with other sensible precautions, like avoiding flame retardant clothing and limiting bra wearing. Once a woman develops breast cancer; however, there is a very powerful and effective way of treating it to make it shrink or go away completely and that is with applications of natural garlic that has not been irradiated. A friend of mine's girlfriend developed a lump in her breast about the size of a ping pong ball and he asked me if garlic could help and I told him about two very different but similar ways to use garlic externally, in addition to eating it to build up her immune system to reduce the size of the tumor. Six weeks later the tumor had shrunk by over 90% and her doctor was shocked and amazed. I expected the results she got. Because of space limitations here it will take more than one post to explain it.  There are brief explanations of these techniques in the health benefits page of my website, www.gourmetgarlicgardens.com/health.htm  if anyone is interested in reading about them. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 9:00:24 AM 11  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   bloodguy ⋅ Joined On 5/12/2009 10:10:39 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message @versatile and @pantox,  PLEASE read about the Canadian study (see link :www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../15042607 )  and tell me WHY I shouldn't get a PSA test.   A 62% REDUCTION IN MORTALITY may be a good thing. Now, a very close friend of ours, mid-fifties, father of two, has opted to keep his prostate despite a PSA of 198.  So, I'm not advocating radical prostatectomy, OR EVEN A BIOPSY if you're level goes above 4.0. Instead, armed with good information, men should avoid the one-trick-pony practitioners out there and seek competent, integrative health professionals who wisely use the latest techniques to help our own immune system defeat this scourge.  A few examples can be found if you search pubmed for "zyflamend,prostate". Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 10:16:34 AM -8  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   panotx ⋅ Joined On 6/20/2006 6:41:14 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message @bloodguy, I'm not going to do your internet research for you.....PSA testing is the male counter-part of mammograms for women....early detection is a catchword for "find more customers" for the highly profitable "cancer cure" industry.....both testing procedures have been shown to have as high as 40% false positives....Dr Mercola has had previous articles questioning the rationale of these tests...search his site as well as natural news and Greenmedinfo.com and generate your own illumination....also, in 99% of prostate cases, the cancer is so slow to advance that procedures or even just knowing about it are a needless worry... Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 11:11:55 AM 6  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   Har_Don ⋅ Joined On 1/30/2010 10:55:50 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Good reply, Panotx.  I was going to ask if her friend had to sleep standing up after he had his "prostrate" ripped out. . .   Excellent article, Dr. M.  Since retiring 6 years ago, I only wear a bra when necessary -- like to church Sunday morning.   I've known Vitamin D is good, and I take 5000 IU/day.  Now I know that it's even better.  {:-)  Now I know why Big Pharma is trying so hard to downplay Vita D. . .  They'd be out of a job if everyone found out what Vita D and lemon juice can do for your immune system. And garlic -- don't forget the garlic!  {:-) Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 11:21:20 AM 8  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   versatile ⋅ Joined On 10/16/2007 4:23:09 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message @bloodguy  This study (also Canadian), www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../PMC3235209   two years after the Quebec study concluded: "Adverse events include 70% rate of false positives, important risks associated with prostate biopsy, and the serious consequences of prostate cancer treatment. The best evidence demonstrates prostate cancer screening will reduce prostate cancer mortality. It is time for the debate to move beyond this issue, and begin a well-informed discussion on the remaining complex issues associated with prostate cancer screening and appropriate management." On the Quebec Study, they reported thus:  Quebec Ciity    Randomized:Unclear Allocation Concealment:Unclear Blinded Outcome Assessment: Unclear 11 years Perhaps the most important information that I believe is not studied with regards to breast cancers and prostate cancers is the health of the patient.  It is very difficult to evaluate healthiness (as opposed to illness), so we don't do it.  I believe if we evaluated the healthiness of every cancer patient at the time of diagnosis - we would gain much useful information about cancers. Further, I believe an evaluation of the 'healthiness' should be mandatory for every subject of any clinical trial. In a previous blog post I discussed hypothetical subjects Alice and Zizi, who both appear 'healthy', but Alice gets many more serious colds than Zizi.  When they are not sick - how can we measure their healthiness?  Clearly they have different levels of healthiness.  personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/10/hierarchy-of-health-primary..  tracy Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 1:57:58 PM 3  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   Mark Fletcher ⋅ Joined On 4/25/2007 12:36:18 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Preferably eat your garlic raw.  An easy way to do this is make middle eastern dips and salads (hummus, babaganoush, muhamara, tabouli, acili ezme) and put in as many cloves of garlic as you can stand.  I typically add about eight large ones.  You may not make or keep a lot of friends, but you'll stay healthy. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 4:53:29 PM 0  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   enjonn ⋅ Joined On 1/24/2011 1:44:39 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message @Mark Fletcher - Garlic raw or cooked appears to present serious health properties.  Garlicmeister explained quite well in his posts. I like to include garlic in soup.  Love garlic fried in oil in a frying pan.  If your work includes talking to coworkers and customers face to face, consider cooked and fried garlic. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 5:55:10 PM 0  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   Garlicmeister ⋅ Joined On 3/24/2011 3:21:34 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message Enjohn - Thank you for the support. When you fry garlic it destroys the allicin that is formed when it is crushed but it converts it into the fat-soluble compounds that travel through the lymphatic system and kill or inhibit cancer cells there.  In order for the fat-solubles, DATS and DADS to form: however, the allicin must first form and that means the garlic must be crushed or finely chopped so that the allicin can form.   If you eat raw cloves whole they do have the whole range of benefits but a little less of them because saliva and stomach acid neutralize alliinase, the triggering enzyme so less allicin is formed. It is cooking whole cloves in any way that neutralizes all of the health properties because the allicin doesn't form before the heat of cooking destroys the alliinase. If cloves are cooked whole, no allicin forms and they do not have any health benefits.  That's important.  Baked or roasted garlic can be delicious but it doesn't have any health benefits because no allicin was formed.  All the best benefits form as metabolites of allicin; the only way to get health benefits from cloves that stay whole is to pickle them in vinegar or wine and even then they are only the water soluble compounds that are helpful in preventing clots and other circulatory system benefits but have no antimicrobic or antitumor properties.   If that crushed garlic stays raw, it has great antibacterial properties but loses most of it when it is cooked. It is the cooking that produces the fat-solubles that have antitumor properties.  Garlic simply has to be crushed to get the maximum benefit from it. Why these uses don't seem to have occured to anyone else is amazing to me, because it seems so obvious. Hope this helps. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 8:20:26 PM 5  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   bloodguy ⋅ Joined On 5/12/2009 10:10:39 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message @ pantox Equating PSA screening and mammography is silly.  The test is an indicator, not a diagnosis.  Stopping the harm done to 85 year old victims of radical prostatectomies is a medical ethics question.  As is refusing a man the right to a test with a proven 62% reduction in mortality.  Are mamms anywhere near that effective? It's obviously unwise to schedule a biopsy without ruling out prostatitis, infection, injury or other non-cancer factors that raise PSA levels and create "false positives" in studies. Slow-growing cancers pose a low mortality risk.  Biopsy could inadvertently spread malignant cells.  And, plenty of non-invasive, nutritional options exist.  So, the sheeple approach, a one-size-fits-all, mindless following of either a 'standard of care' prescribed by medico-profiteers or some national taskforce's findings may not be the best course for us to follow.  Depending on your age, of course. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 10:19:24 PM -3  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   enjonn ⋅ Joined On 1/24/2011 1:44:39 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message @Garlicmeister - A garlic crusher seems necessary; I will shop for one.  Thanks for explaining in more detail. Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/4/2012 1:31:02 PM 0  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   simple_don ⋅ Joined On 6/25/2008 10:02:09 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message Thank you Dr. Mercola for sounding the alarm.  Following my mom's death from a cancer in her breast that a biopsy exposed to the rest of her body (and it then took her very quickly), I searched for reasons that this could happen to a vibrantly healthy woman.  For about two decades now, I have been cautioning the ladies I know to avoid mammograms, explaining to them that every single time flesh is irradiated, cells mutate...100% of the time.  Leaked information has shown that the risk of mammograms actually causing cancers "was known" as far back as late 1972, early 1973.  It was also known back then that the increase in breast cancers would prove profitable to the medical industry.  This follows a similar line where doctors in the 1920's and 1930's were not only advising their female patients to douche with Lysol twice a day, but also generated fear in their female patients if they did not follow their advice.  The medical industry has a long history of betraying the trust that a woman has placed in her doctor as the industry preys upon a woman's fears of the unknown... fears brought on from the frightening images that the industry had initially conjured, to later, when those images became reality, brought on by the very procedures that were acclaimed to be a preventative measure. I have also read reports, papers and treatises, written by very respected physicians, stating that biopsies are safe and will not open a cancer to the rest of the body... and they may fully believe that lie.  But in this universe, with the laws of physics that govern all we do, you cannot introduce a metal object (that is a 1000 times larger than a cancer cell) through a protein sheath that surrounds and contains a cancer, and then pull that metal object out with tissue attached, through a liquid matrix, WITHOUT drawing/spreading cancer cells behind it... just like a sinking ship pulling someone down who was in the water close to it.  A biopsy will open a contained cancer 100% of the time. Reply | Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 12:40:26 PM 9  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   JJ72 ⋅ Joined On 7/7/2007 4:43:09 AM  Add as Friend | Send Message Douching with Lysol? Good heavens, I won't even have that stuff in my house. That is so cruel!!! What were they thinking?! Mark as Spam ⋅ Posted On 3/3/2012 1:57:20 PM 2  Points ⋅ Like | Dislike   simple_don ⋅ Joined On 6/25/2008 10:02:09 PM  Add as Friend | Send Message I would love to know what they were truly thinking, especially those who implemented that insane idea.  Whatever their agenda was, it gave rise to Gynecology and Obstetrics, and the yearly check-up that didn't exist prior to the meteoric rise in cervical cancers due to women following their doctor's advice and introducing that toxic liquid into their most delicate areas. I don't know how much Lysol paid for those doctor recommendations. I also don't know how much the makers of Camel cigarettes paid doctors to smoke their brand... as the "old" commercial stated, "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette."  (If I failed to earlier indicate that I was old, my citing that commercial just did.) We have been programmed from our infancy to follow our doctor's lead... without questioning.  Basically, allopathic medicine is the state-religion.