The Mammography racket
Cancer   Medical Hoaxes  Radiation

[The only reason for this (Satanic Psychopathic) racket is to increase cancer levels through radiation (mammography and radiation therapy), increase cancer cases they can then treat (10 times what it should be,1 which also helps greatly with their 'cure' stats) by the perpetual cash machine called Cancer Inc, along with its seen to be doing something propaganda value, while they have suppressed dozens of cheap, non-toxic, fear removing real cures such as Hamer, Kelley, Gerson, Nichols, Zapper etc. and real, harmless, diagnostic tools such as Breast thermography and Electronic testing. They will continue poisoning, burning, mutilating and terrorising women (along with their families), while earning themselves a huge amount of (blood) money, forever, if they can get away with it. See: Depleted Uranium to see the Beast behind mammograms.]

SeeBreast cancer Radiation Radiation therapy  Scans Zapper quotes Breast thermography


Dr John Gofman
Samuel S Epstein, M.D.
Professor Gotzsche

[2016 Jan] 'Cancer Screening Has Never Saved Lives' - BMJ Study Concludes we have reported extensively on the widespread misclassification of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as a bono fide malignant cancer, as well as its epidemic level overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Tens of thousands of women are diagnosed each year with these so-called "early stage breast cancers," even though the National Cancer Institute itself acknowledges it should be classified as a benign or indolent lesions of epithelial origin. The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in 2012 shows that approximately 1.3 million women were diagnosed with DCIS in the past 30 years, with most receiving either mastectomy, lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy, or some combination thereof. Ironically, many of these women ardently believe that their lives were "saved" by the screening and treatment, succumbing to the biomedical equivalent of Stockholm syndrome where identifying with the 'aggressor' becomes palliative. In reality, most suffered irreparable harm not from the "cancer," but from both the psychological and physical effects of being wrongly diagnosed and treated. If the end point were not breast cancer specific mortality ('invasive' breast cancer has not declined but increased with screening, indicating overdiagnosis), but overall mortality, it is likely that these DCIS diagnosed women's lives were significantly truncated because of screening programs; at the very least, the quality of their lives would have been significantly negatively impacted.

[2012] Study: Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More Malignant

[2012 Oct] Mammograms Linked To An Epidemic of Misdiagnosed Cancers

[2012 March] The expert branded a woman hater for saying breast cancer screening ruins lives   for every 2,000 women screened regularly for ten years, just one will benefit from the screening. At the same time, ten healthy women will, as a consequence, become cancer patients and be treated unnecessarily.

[2011 Oct] Women endangered by high rate of false-positive mammograms

[2011 Nov] Junk Science Claim That Modern Medicine Greatly Extends Life After Cancer Based on Cheap Trick

[2011 July] Widely used CAD mammography tool fails to find invasive breast cancer, causes needless tests and stress  "In real-world practice, CAD increases the chances of being unnecessarily called back for further testing because of false-positive results without clear benefits to women,” said Joshua Fenton, assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Family and Community Medicine. “Breast cancers were detected at a similar stage and size regardless of whether or not radiologists used CAD."

[2011] Many Invasive Breast Cancers Heal Naturally: Lancet Study

[2011 June] The FDA assaults breast thermography while protecting mammography industry  First of all, it slanders the breast thermography industry and the multitude of mainstream medical journal articles supporting its value. As a point of interest, the FDA approved breast thermography as an adjunct to mammography in 1982. You would think that there just might be a reason or two supporting its value that they appreciate but fail to mention....There is an abundance of scientific evidence in the mainstream journals supporting that breast thermography as a superior tool to mammograms because it is more sensitive and makes fewer errors when used properly, particularly in women under the age of 50, where there's tremendous controversy about the validity of mammograms as a primary screening tool for breast cancer.  The final embarrassment for the FDA and Journal Watch, is that three of the five people voting against bringing breast thermography forward into clinical practice in that fatal meeting in 2004, had a serious conflict of interest connecting them to the mammography industry. Wow!

[2010 March] Mammograms cause 7,000 women to receive false positives each year in the UK

[2010] Mammogram Scam for Oldsters with Money  by SHERRY BAKER (NATURAL NEWS)

[2009 Nov] Risks of Mammography: Hidden Role of the American Cancer Society

[Newstarget Feb 2007] Mammograms offer no health benefits whatsoever, doctors conclude

[2009 July] Cancer Screening: Does It Really Save Lives? by Dr. Julian Whitaker

Mammograms by Dr Campbell

[2007] The mammogram scam by Marnie Ko

Mammography Is Dangerous Besides Ineffective, Warns Samuel S Epstein, M.D.

The Depths of Deceit Mammography by Chris Gupta

The Depths of Deceit Mammography by Barry Lynes

The "Pink" Fraud - Brought to you by the people who make Breast Cancer by Dr. Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP


Mammograms, X-rays may boost breast cancer risk by 250%

Mammograms and breast implants

Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies And Controversy by Professor Peter Gotzsche

Preventing Breast Cancer, The story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of This Disease by Dr Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.
This book uncovers the major cause of the recent breast-cancer incidence in the USA. The author shows that past exposure to ionizing radiation --- primarily medical x-rays --- is responsible for about 75 percent of the breast-cancer problem in the United States

Radiation-Induced Cancer From Low-Dose Exposure -- An Independent Analysis, by John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph. D., 1990

Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease: Dose-Response Studies with Physicians per 100,000 Population, by John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph. D., Edited by Egan O'Connor, (1999, 699 pages)
Hypothesis-1: Medical radiation is a highly important cause (probably the principal cause) of cancer mortality in the United States during the Twentieth Century. Medical radiation means, primarily, exposure by xrays (including fluoroscopy and CT scans).
Hypothesis-2: Medical radiation, received even at very low and moderate doses, is an important cause of death from Ischemic Heart Disease; the probable mechanism is radiation-induction of mutations in the coronary arteries, resulting in dysfunctional clones (mini-tumors) of smooth muscle cells.