Dr. Rath Research Institute

Many women who have survived breast cancer often say it was a mammogram that "saved their life," a powerful testimonial that can encourage other women to get regular breast cancer screening tests. But what are the chances that the test actually saved a woman's life? Not that great, according to a new analysis published in the Archives of Internal Medicine on Monday.

Comments: The debate over the utility of mammograms started in 2009 when the U.S. Preventative Task Force suggested that women do not need mammograms starting at age 40; they could start at 50 and can do well even with less frequent tests than currently suggested. Two years later, the Archives of Internal Medicine published this study, which states that mammograms do not necessarily save lives.

Interestingly, this surfaced around the same time JAMA published a similar study with a clear conclusion that, “Annual screening with chest radiograph did not reduce lung cancer mortality compared with usual care.”

In the past few years, researchers are taking an objective look at the real value of various screening procedures to diagnose cancers. Prostate and cervical cancer screening use simple tests (blood PSA levels and Pap smears, respectively) to detect potential cancerous transformation. Yet, their usefulness is also under scrutiny. On the other hand, breast, lung and many other cancer screening tests rely on radiation technology to detect abnormal activity in specific organs. After several years of such mass screening and treating those “small, undetectable” cancers, everyone is starting to see that the cancer statistics have not changed that dramatically and the cancer-related health care costs are still skyrocketing to the point of financially ruining the national economics.

Moreover, the fact that techniques used in such screenings, especially radiation screenings, is harmful in itself and can generate more cancers, and even genetic defects trailing well into future generations. Although all body organs could potentially be harmed by radiation exposure; the breast, thyroid gland, bone marrow, digestive and reproductive organs are more sensitive to radiation damage because of the continuous cellular activity in them. Increased usage of scanning does not add value to patients’ medical care or life expectancy. The unnecessary radiation exposure, however, does put them and their future generations on a trajectory for cancer, heart disease and genetic malformations. Furthermore, this study concluded that even when the cancers are detected, most of them are clinically advanced to be successfully treated or they tend to resolve on their own without treatment. Therefore, when the body is healthy enough to destroy the cancerous cells, many of the detected cancers are known to disappear. This study states that only 3-13% of the breast cancer cases were helped with the early detection by mammography. The rest 85-95% of the women had to undergo the testing, exposing themselves to regular harmful radiation, and many of them had to undergo moderate to severe cancer treatments including surgery, chemotherapy and further radiation to “treat” their small cancers, which may not be life threatening after all.

Radiation exposure through one mammogram can vary widely and can also be equal to as high as 75 chest X-rays. Considering the risk-benefit ratio and cost, regular yearly mammograms in women over 40 do not make sense, especially, and not necessary for every woman. A comparative study in breast cancer detection between the USA and UK found although the cancer detection rates were similar in both countries, false positive test results were twice as high in the US. To save patients a lot of psychological and financial burden, it is very important that mammograms are evaluated by an experienced radiologist.

Similarly other radiological screenings, whole body scans and x-rays, expose a healthy person to considerably high radiation doses. In addition to unnecessary radiation, there is a high possibility of detecting false positives or benign abnormalities. Such screening, followed by the “treatment” of diseases that never existed, could prove to be much more harmful.

For over a decade, Dr. Rath has been conveying the message that treatment of cancer does not necessarily have to be “cut, poison and burn.” the human body has the ability to defend itself as long as it is supplied with appropriate ammunition in the form of essential nutrients. Dr. Rath exposed the pharmaceutical business with disease agenda, and explained why the drug industry does not have any interest in curing cancer. His discoveries, supported by extensive research and publications from the Dr. Rath Research Institute scientists, have successfully proven that a combination of surgery, chemo and radiotherapy are not required to cure cancer. But a crucial part in the cancer cure is the combination of vital nutrients supplied in specific synergistic proportion.

You can read a simple explanation of this research, along with the cellular mechanism of cancer development and the action of nutrients in a recently published series: “Victory Over Cancer!” Part 1 and 2. In this series Dr. Rath and Dr. Niedzwiecki explain that cancer does not have to be a death sentence, nor does it have to be a financial burden. With essential nutrient supplements taken on a regular basis victory over cancer is achievable!

Read more at www.victory-over-cancer.org and at www.drrathresearch.org

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/25/us-mammograms- idUSTRE79O4WQ20111025