Why are you still doing mammograms?

image

The Susan G. Komen Foundation first handed out the Pink Ribbon in 1991 to participants in the New York City race for breast cancer survivors. It must have been difficult for sixty-eight year old breast cancer survivor Charlotte Haley—who had started her own peach ribbon campaign in 1990. Charlotte made her ribbons by hand and distributed them herself with a card attached that read, “The National Cancer Institute’s annual budget is 1.8 billion US dollars, and only 5% goes to cancer prevention. Help us wake up our legislators and America by wearing this ribbon.” Cancer prevention. While the commercially driven pink ribbon campaign is an internationally recognized symbol—breast cancer prevention options haven’t changed much.

It’s crazy isn’t it?   It’s amazing how much a simple color change to Estee Lauder’s “150 pink” and “nearly $2 BILLION dollars into research, awareness, outreach, and advocacy in more than 50 countries” (Komen Foundation-resource below) can do to raise “awareness.” Despite the information and studies that have since been done on the safety of mammograms for prevention, they remain the gold standard for breast cancer prevention and awareness.

According to Dr. Russell Blaylock, if a woman followed the old guidelines of yearly mammograms beginning at age 40 with no cancer, by the time she was 50—she would have increased her chances of getting cancer from radiation exposure by 30%:

“ Some radiologists say it’s even higher than that. But there is also a subgroup of women who have a strong family history of breast cancer and their rates are infinitely higher than that. The reason they have a high risk factor is that they can’t repair their DNA very well. They have BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, which is the gene that repairs DNA when it’s damaged by radiation. For these women the same dosage of radiation given to women without the BRCA gene causes much more damage. It’s probably equivalent to three, four, or five times the amount of radiation. For women with BRCA1 and BRCA2, mammograms can induce not only cancer but also a very aggressive cancer.”

Read that again and let it sink in. (See Knockout below)

How’s that for prevention? And for women with DCIS (ductile carcinoma in situ) why would you risk rupturing an enclosed milk duct that in most cases would never metastasize? Are they causing more damage by smashing your breast between two metal plates? And fibrocystic breasts in most cases are too dense to see anything radiologically until you can already feel a lump. So much for prevention. For pregnant women, the hormone progesterone increases your sensitivity to radiation and your baby’s risk of developing leukemia from the exposure.

So why would any doctor continue to order mammograms? And why don’t they educate themselves and their patients to other alternatives like Thermography? I suggested this to an oncologist three years ago and his response was, “I’ve never heard of it, and even if I did, there’s probably no one around here that does it.” In actuality, there was a naturopath within 2 miles from his office who had been doing thermograms for several years. I gave him her card.

Cancer treatment is big money. How are hospitals going to pay for mammogram units that cost on average $430,000 dollars each? Imagine the economic impact of natural healing techniques that eliminate inflammation, lifestyle changes that nourish and promote self-love; and using Thermography. Imagine studying epigenetics and learning that your genes are more influenced by your lifestyle than your history. Oncologists would have to find another profession. Radiology units would close, laying off millions of people. Who would pay for all those machines? It has to raise the question, “Do they really want to find a cure?”

Awareness really is the answer. But the question is, are you ready to find the truth?

 

Resources:

Notes from a Naturopath; Chapter 15; “Breast Cancer–Pink Ribbons and Tears are not enough.”

https://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/resources/history-of-the-pink-ribbon/

Komen Foundation:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509

Dr. Blaylock:

https://www.suzannesomers.com/products/knockout-interviews-with-doctors-who-are-curing-cancer

Mammography Machines:

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150706/news/150709953

 

Cancer is big business:

http://www.naturalnews.com/039094_Komen_Foundation_pinkwashing_fundraising_schemes.html

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-07-12-the-susan-g-komen-foundation-has-filed-lawsuits-aginst-hundreds-of-mom-and-pop-cancer-charities-for-use-of-the-word-cure.html

 

Thomasina Copenhaver on InstagramThomasina Copenhaver on Twitter
Thomasina Copenhaver
Thomasina Copenhaver is a naturopathic doctor and registered nurse with over 30 years experience in the healthcare profession. Her passion is writing, researching, and empowering all humans with knowledge of healing at the cellular level; to enable them to make educated and informed choices regarding their health. For more information visit her website: notesfromanaturopath.com or to buy her book, "Notes from a Naturopath" visit Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

  • #1TroubleMaker

    It’s not just the radiation, which loves to ‘grow’ tumors, it’s the ‘smashing of the breasts’ that ‘insures’ the metastasizing of cancer.

    When mammograms were first introduced by corporate big box medical industry, doctors who had been seeing woman for annual breast exams said of the ‘new technology’…. “With mammograms we’ll see breast cancer explode”. They were right and for some good reasons.

    Before these ‘wonderful’ monograms,, a woman was unlikely to die of breast cancer. That’s one fact they certainly don’t tell women today. It’s not that some women didn’t get a lump, but doctors back then knew that if the breast was not ‘smashed’ the tumor would NOT metastasize, and in most cases it would eventually go away. That’s another fact they dare not tell woman.

    There is plenty of published research on radiation and cancer growth and smashing the breast and their tumors followed by chemo is a sure recipe for cancer and death.

    Women need to walk away from mammograms. (and Susan B Komen) Some doctors who don’t recommend mammograms suggest switching to ‘HD ultrasound’, which gives more detail without smashing or radiation. Also, most breast cancer is NOT very aggressive (some can be) but in the later if it was me, I would try every alternative treatment before getting scared into chemo, if it was me with a lump.

  • Michael Haymar

    Making the following lifestyle changes will help to prevent breast cancer. Stop using antiperspirants that contains aluminium. Do not have root canal tooth fillings or amalgam tooth fillings. Stop eating soy products. Stop eating food that is contaminated with glyphosate. Stop eating too much sugar. Stop eating vegetable margarine, eat butter instead. Increase your intake of foods that contain vitamin D. Stop wearing a brassiere for long periods.

  • Harley P. Quinn

    I am not doing mammograms. My mom never had a mammogram until she was 70 years old. Either due to ignorance or laziness. She never had breast cancer. And she wasn’t aware of Vitamin D. I keep my Vitamin D levels high and I will be going this year for a thermogram. I also believe that smashing contributes to cancer.. not just of the breast. A friend got in a car accident and suffered a hard blow to her lower back area. Within a year.. colon cancer. I suspect what ever was there pre accident did some serious spreading afterwards.

  • Deplorable Cowgirl

    I just turned 60 earlier this year. I have not had a mammogram and don’t plan on it. I eat organic, don’t use antiperspirants, drink clean water and exercise. I think the things we eat and drink, put on our body and the drugs that are pushed on us are the culprits for breast cancer.