A growing body of people believe citizens are being obscured from the truth about the extent of harmful pesticides in food, especially the genetically modified crops dependent upon herbicides/pesticides.
"The First Honest Mammography Information"
The U.S. Center for Medical Consumers called this leaflet "the first honest mammography information for women written by health professionals" available now only at the Wayback Machine here: Mammography Screening Leaflet
"The information women receive when they are invited to attend for screening with mammography is insufficient, one-sided and erroneous. The letters of invitation emphasize the benefits of screening, but they do not describe how many healthy women will experience the most important harms, overdiagnosis and over treatment.
Information on the internet, e.g. on cancer charity web sites, often omits the most important harms. Or they are described as benefits. For example, screening is said to reduce the risk that a woman loses her breast. This is not true. Because of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, screening increases the risk of mastectomy."
The following websites are recommended if you would like further information:
the National Breast Cancer Coalition (www.stopbreastcancer.org), whose members are mainly women with breast cancer, and
the Center for Medical Consumers (www.medicalconsumers.org)
Why cancer screening has never been shown to “save lives”—and what we can do about it
Vinay Prasad MD, MPH Assistant Professor, Oregon Health Sciences University, Author
Local OHSU Assistant Professor Vinay Prasad, linked here in an interview & article by the BMJ (British Medical Journal), explains the harms of breast and other cancer screenings and urges clinicians to take the time to explain the real risks & harms of cancer screening, especially that of over-diagnosis (the treatment of healthy individuals for cancers that are either inactive or are so slow-growing that the person will never become symptomatic). He and his colleagues say the claim that cancer screening saves lives is based on fewer deaths due to the target cancer and argues that reductions in overall mortality should be the benchmark and calls for higher standards of evidence for cancer screening.
““Tell patients what we know, what we don’t know, and what we merely believe””
While such trials would be expensive and large, he points out that they would cost a fraction of what is currently being spent on screening and would better illuminate the harms and effects on overall mortality currently missing from the cancer statistics showing only disease-specific mortality.
Clearly the medical community needs to improve their ability to determine which cancers will progress and which won't. Treating them all as if they will be lethal is a net harm to women, not counting the harm to self resilience and immune function with stress of obscenely high false positives and biopsy rates.
Thermography gives women and clinicians a way to monitor breasts safely and limits invasive treatments to when they are truly justifiable...