Six crucial things to watch out for when buying vitamins and supplements

 

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Not all vitamins and dietary supplements are the same. Many popular supplement brands, in fact, contain artificial additives, synthetic flow agents, chemical colorings, and even imitation vitamin compounds that your body does not recognize and cannot fully process. So how can you know whether or not the vitamins and supplements you buy are safe and effective? Here are six helpful tips on what to watch out for when buying vitamins and supplements.

1) Synthetic vitamins. There is a big difference between the natural vitamins found in food and the so-called vitamins added to many popular dietary supplements. Whole-food based vitamins are uniquely bioavailable, and occur naturally in foods, plants, and herbs. Synthetic vitamins, on the other hand, are produced in a laboratory, and may be derived from toxic sources such as coal tar and petroleum.

How can you know the difference? Synthetic vitamins are typically listed on ingredient labels by their isolated names — ascorbic acid (vitamin C), riboflavin (vitamin B2), and dl-alpha tocopherol acetate (vitamin E) are all examples of synthetic vitamins commonly added to vitamins and supplements, including multivitamin formulas. Stick with whole food-based vitamins and supplements, including those that clearly delineate their being derived from plants or other natural sources.

“In addition to being synthetic, isolated vitamins are missing all their naturally occurring essential synergistic co-factors and transporters,” explains the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). “A synthetic vitamin can stimulate a cell’s metabolism, but it cannot upgrade or replace the cell’s components with superior, better quality elements. The results? A degraded cell.” (http://www.organicconsumers.org/nutricon/qa.cfm)

2) Magnesium stearate. Believe it or not, many supplements, including those made by more reputable brands, contain a flow agent additive that, over time, can actually block the absorption of nutrients into your body. This ingredient is known as magnesium stearate, and regular consumption of it is linked to the development of a harmful “biofilm” in the intestines that may cause digestive problems.

Despite having the word magnesium in its name, magnesium stearate is not a source of nutritive magnesium. The only reason why supplement manufacturers add the chalk-like substance to their products is to make them easier to process through manufacturing equipment. But the long-term health consequences of ingesting magnesium stearate may not be worth the risk.

3) Titanium dioxide. Another unnecessary additive found in many supplements, titanium dioxide, which is often used as a pigment in vitamins and supplements, comes with its own set of health risks. An untested nanoparticle powder made from titanium bits, titanium dioxide has been linked to causing autoimmune disorders, cancer, and various other diseases. Besides the fact that it belongs to a class of particles known to cause cell damage, titanium dioxide serves no therapeutic purpose whatsoever, which means it does not belong in a health supplement.

“Titanium dioxide has recently been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen ‘possibly carcinogen[ic] to humans,’” explains the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety on its website. “This evidence showed that high concentrations of pigment-grade (powdered) and ultrafine titanium dioxide dust caused respiratory tract cancer in rats exposed by inhalation and intratracheal instillation.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/027000_titanium_dioxide_vitamins.html)

4) Artificial colors. Though not as common in more reputable vitamin and supplement brands, artificial colors are still present in many mainstream supplements. The Pfizer-owned brand of supplements marketed as Centrum, for instance, contain toxic coloring agents like FD&C Blue No. 2 Aluminum Lake and FD&C Red No. 40 Aluminum Lake, both of which are potential neurotoxins. Even children’s vitamins like Flintstones Complete contain these and other toxic coloring agents. (http://www.greenmedinfo.com)

5) Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). If your vitamin or supplement formula contains ingredients like maltodextrin, citric acid, dextrose, vegetable-based fillers, sugars of any kind, or even synthetic vitamin C (ascorbic acid), chances are it also contains GMOs. Unless specifically stated on the bottle as being GMO-free, a vitamin supplement that is not whole food-based more than likely contains ingredients derived from GMOs.

Soybean oil is often used as a filler in gelcap-based supplements, and is a common source of GMOs. Vitamin E is another common GMO additive typically derived from soy, more than 90 percent of which is of GMO origin in the U.S. Other common GMO ingredients, unless otherwise labeled, include soy lecithin, inositol, choline, vegetable oil, and vegetable cellulose. (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/docs/Non-GMO-Shopping-Guide.pdf)

6) Irradiation. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently prohibits the use of irradiation as a sterilizing protocol for dietary supplements. But this does not mean that every raw ingredient used in dietary supplements is free of irradiation, as suppliers have been caught in the past illegally selling irradiated raw materials. A European Commission study from back in 2002, for instance, found that nearly half of all dietary supplements tested in Europe contained ingredients that had been illegally irradiated. (http://www.nutraingredients.com)

Since most supplement manufacturers will insist that their products are not irradiated, the best way to know for sure is to ask a company directly whether or not it tests and verifies the integrity of all its raw ingredients. If it does not, urge the company to do so and ask for test results.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.draxe.com

http://www.optinutri.net/supplements.html

Read Full Post »

I Am Always Tired!,,VACCINE DAMAGE

I Am Always Tired! Join The Club. However, It Could Be A Sign Of Brain Damage

http://www.vaccineinjuryhelpcenter.com

Posted on September 22, 2011 by Vaccine Injury Lawyer

Now we are not talking about regular old exhaustion. We all get tired and worn down. What we are talking about here is an illness that makes a person so incredibly tired that they are unable to function in society. The illness is called Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) / Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy) (ME). The symptoms can be as disabling as multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, congestive heart failure and other chronic conditions.

So What Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome?

Let’s turn to our friends at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for a proper definition. The CDC says “[c]hronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS, is a debilitating and complex disorder characterized by profound fatigue that is not improved by bed rest and that may be worsened by physical or mental activity. Persons with CFS most often function at a substantially lower level of activity than they were capable of before the onset of illness.” That is pretty general right? That definition could describe depression or one hundred other diseases. This is why doctors use this condition as a “bucket diagnosis”. If a doctor can’t figure it out he will but it in the bucket so you will go away satisfied. This general description of a serious condition opens the field for people to not take chronic fatigue seriously.

CFS/ME is not rare. The CDC estimates that there are as many as 500,000 persons in the United States who have CFS-like symptoms. However, the disorder remains debilitating, complex and mysterious in origin, natural history, understanding and treatment.

Look Out For Fatigue, Tiredness, Headaches, and Pain After Vaccination

CFS/ME comprises a range of symptoms that includes fatigue, malaise, headaches, sleep disturbances, difficulties with concentration and muscle pain. A person’s symptoms may fluctuate in intensity and severity, and there is also great variability in the symptoms different people experience. CFS/ME is characterized by debilitating fatigue that is unlike everyday fatigue and can be triggered by minimal activity. This raises especially complex issues in adults and children with severe CFS/ME.

At present, there are no physical signs that identify CFS/ME specifically. And, because there is no blood test, brain scan or other lab test to diagnose CFS, it’s a diagnosis of exclusion. If a patient has had 6 or more consecutive months of severe fatigue that is reported to be unrelieved by sufficient bed rest and that is accompanied by nonspecific symptoms, including flu-like symptoms, generalized pain, and memory problems, the physician should further investigate the possibility that the patient may have CFS.

Your health care professional will first take a detailed patient history, including a review of medications that could be causing your fatigue. A thorough physical and mental status examination will also be performed. Next, a battery of laboratory screening tests will be ordered to help identify or rule out other possible causes of your symptoms. Your professional may also order additional tests to follow up on results of the initial screening tests. A diagnosis of insufficient fatigue could be made if a patient has been fatigued for 6 months or more, but does not meet the symptom criteria for CFS.

In other words, a positive diagnosis of CFS/ME should only be made after other known causes for the symptoms have been excluded and where the symptoms are causing functional impairment.

Managing chronic fatigue syndrome can be as complex as the illness itself. There is no cure, no prescription drugs developed specifically for CFS, and symptoms vary considerably over time. These factors complicate the treatment process and require patients and health care professionals to constantly monitor and frequently revise treatment strategies.

One report on CFS/ME concluded that the natural course of CFS/ME is such that most patients will show some degree of improvement over time, especially with treatment, that a substantial number of patients will pursue a fluctuating course with periods of relative remission and relapse, and a significant minority become severely, and perhaps permanently, disabled.

Read Full Post »

Mammograms a medical hoax

Shock study: Mammograms a medical hoax, over one million American women maimed by unnecessary ‘treatment’ for cancer they never had

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Mammography is a cruel medical hoax. As I have described here on Natural News many times, the primary purpose of mammography is not to “save” women from cancer, but to recruit women into false positives that scare them into expensive, toxic treatments like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

The “dirty little secret” of the cancer industry is that the very same oncologists who scare women into falsely believing they have breast cancer are also the ones pocketing huge profits from selling those women chemotherapy drugs. The conflicts of interest and abandonment of ethics across the cancer industry is breathtaking.

Now, a new scientific study has confirmed exactly what I’ve been warning readers about for years: most women “diagnosed” with breast cancer via mammography never had a cancer problem to begin with!

93% of “early detection” has no benefit to the patient

That’s the conclusion of a groundbreaking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

“We found that the introduction of screening has been associated with about 1.5 million additional women receiving a diagnosis of early stage breast cancer,” writes study co-author Dr. Gilbert Welch.

Now, at first, you might think that’s a good thing. You might think, “Well, early detection saves lives, just like we’ve been told by Komen and thecancer non-profits.”

But you’d be wrong. As Dr. Welch’s team discovered, there was virtually no reduction in late-stage breast cancer from all this “early” diagnosis, meaning that most women who were told they had breast cancer after a mammogram were being lied to.

As he explains:

We found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of overdiagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer — most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation — for a “cancer” that was never going to make them sick. Although it’s impossible to know which women these are, that’s some pretty serious harm.

Yep, it is. In fact, if you do the math and calculate 0.1 million fewer women with advanced-stage cancer out of 1.5 million who were diagnosed,93% of the “early detection” cancer cases studied were false positives, meaning that they would never have gone on to cause advanced-stage cancer anyway.

Chemo, radiation, cancer surgery largely a hoax

According to these scientists, “Breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years.”

That’s 1.3 million women who were told by their lying oncologists: “If you don’t agree to treatment, you’ll be dead in six months” (or two years, or whatever fraudulent scare schedule they use).

Under the threat of this fear, most women cave in and agree to start “treatment” — often on the very same day they are falsely diagnosed. This so-called “treatment” consists of a highly toxic injection of deadly chemicals that the oncologist makes a small fortune selling to the very same patients he falsely diagnosed. Yep, that’s right: Cancer clinics and oncology treatment centers make huge profits on the chemotherapy drugs they sell to patients – the very same patients they scared into treatment through a false positive mammogram.

Despite the near-total failure of mammography from a scientific point of view, the propaganda push for mammography is downright deafening. As Dr. Welch explains in his New York Times article:

…No other medical test has been as aggressively promoted as mammograms — efforts that have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion (“I can’t be your doctor if you don’t get one”). And proponents have used the most misleading screening statistic there is: survival rates. A recent Komen foundation campaign typifies the approach: In short, tell everyone they have cancer, and survival will [statistically] skyrocket.

Komen for the Cure, of course, has been caught blatantly lying about the supposed “benefits” of mammography. Their statistical deception fools most women, sadly, convincing them to undergo toxic chemotherapy for a “breast cancer” they never really had.

The quackery of modern oncology

Once women begin the chemotherapy for a cancer they don’t even have, they begin to experience what the quack oncologist calls “symptoms of cancer.” Their hair falls out. They lose their appetite. Their muscles atrophy. They become weak, mentally confused and chronically fatigued. The cancer doctor then tells the woman, “You must be strong to pull through this while the medicine is working.”

Pure quackery! You could do much better invoking voodoo or even just wishing to be cured. Because everything about the cancer experience in modern medicine — the diagnosis, the “treatment,” the medical authority — is utterly and maliciously fabricated for the purpose of generatingcancer industry profits.

“Better” technology leads to more false positives

There is no more apparent example of modern-day medical quackery than the cancer industry. Armed with ever-more-precise mammography machines, the rate of false positive diagnoses has shot through the roof.

As Dr. Welch writes in the New York Times:

Six years ago, a long-term follow-up of a randomized trial showed that about one-quarter of cancers detected by screening were overdiagnosed. And this study reflected mammograms as used in the 1980s. Newer digital mammograms detect a lot more abnormalities, and the estimates of overdiagnosis have risen commensurately: now somewhere between a third and half of screen-detected cancers.

Got that? Many cancer diagnoses from mammography are utterly false. But they are a great scare tactic for recruiting women into what can only be called a “cult of cancer” in which they are manipulated into poisoning themselves with chemicals. They are later called “cancer survivors” if the poison doesn’t manage to kill them.

These cancer survivors are, of course, victims of a malicious medical cult that I call “the Cult of Komen.” In nearly all cases, it wasn’t the cancer that nearly killed them… it was the treatment!

The cult of Komen

Modern day people sneer and snort at the Jim Jones mass suicide cult of 1978, thinking, “How could those cult members be so stupid to poison themselves to death?”

Look around, folks, because the cancer industry has taken the Jim Jones formula and multiplied it by a factor of a million. The “Cult of Komen” is the modern-day Jim Jones “suicide cult.” It’s a cult where people “believe” in the promise of salvation through chemical indoctrination, but what’s actually delivered to them is rotting death, pain, suffering and humiliation. (Many cancer surgeons operating today literally slice off women’s breasts following a false positive cancer diagnosis, maiming her for life.)

One of the earmarks of this cult is the worship of self-mutilation. It’s not just the women who are manipulated into having their breasts sliced off by surgeons; it’s also the women who are manipulated into being injected with deadly poisons that destroy their kidneys, livers and brains. The No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy, by the way, is cancer.

Like any cult, the cancer industry cult pushes its delusions with emotionally-charged propaganda and powerful symbols (pink ribbons). Millions of women get innocently swept up into the “run for the cure,” apparently clueless to the fact that most of that “cure” money goes to pay for more mammograms that result in more false diagnoses which ensnare yet more women into the same victimization racket.

Thus, the very women who participate in raising money for these pink ribbon cult worship-fests are actually paying for the mammogram machines that will recruit more women into the same cult via a quack diagnosis followed by a “campaign of fear and terror” carried out by oncologists against women. What the cancer industry is doing today is, by any measure, a crime against women. It’s also a form of cultural mutilation of women, much like we’ve seen in Aztec, Mayan and various African cultures throughout history.

Is the Cult of Komen a criminal operation? Almost certainly. Is it scientific? Not a chance. There is nothing “scientific” about the modern-day cancer industry other than the scientific manipulation of women’s fears and emotions. What Komen and the cancer industry lacks in ethics, science or facts, it more than makes up for in tactics of linguistic influence, arm-twisting and flat-out lying to the public about the over-hyped benefits of mammography.

The cancer industry isn’t in the business of curing cancer, after all. But it is in the business of catapulting the propaganda of the delusional cancer cult. As Dr. Welch explains:

Screening proponents have also encouraged the public to believe two things that are patently untrue. First, that every woman who has a cancer diagnosed by mammography has had her life saved (consider those “Mammograms save lives. I’m the proof” T-shirts for breast cancer survivors). The truth is, those survivors are much more likely to have been victims of overdiagnosis.

Thus, all those women marching around with pink T-shirts that say, “Mammograms save lives” are actually declaring themselves to be the unwitting victims of a scientific campaign of targeting women, scaring women into treatment they don’t need, then maiming women with toxic chemicals or surgeons’ knives.

If those pink T-shirts actually told the truth, they should say, “I survived the cancer industry.”

The big question in all this, of course, is: For how long will western civilization continue to live under the spell of the Cult of Komen? How many million women have yet to be sacrificed to the false quackery of mammography and the scam of modern oncology?

And more importantly, why do families allows their own mothers, daughters, aunts and grandmothers to be poisoned and maimed right in front of their own eyes, while they all sit back and submit to the false authority of profit-seeking doctors who practice nothing more than pure quackery?

Modern oncology represents the Dark Ages of western medicine

There will come a day, I have repeatedly predicted, when the modern practice of chemotherapy will be relegated to the history books of bad medicine, alongside sniffing mercury vapors and surgically removing body organs to treat mental disorders.

Until that day comes, countless numbers of innocent women will be tricked into being mutilated, chemically poisoned, and blasted with ionizing radiation by cruel doctors who frankly don’t care one bit how many women they maim or murder as long as they get reimbursed by Medicare for the procedures.

That’s the truth about the cancer industry you won’t hear from Komen (nor from any of its pink ribbon cult followers).

The conclusion from the study authors

Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1206809?query=featured_hom…

 

Read Full Post »

Why Weight Loss Surgery is NOT a Sound Treatment Choice for Type 2 Diabetes

 

Story at-a-glance

• The Cleveland Clinic has chosen weight loss surgery as a treatment for type 2 diabetes as the number one medical invention for 2013, for the unbelievably ludicrous reason that Medicaid and other health insurance will now pay for it, not because it is effective
• Bariatric surgery as a treatment for type 2 diabetes is a prescription for the most invasive and costly (not to mention risky) intervention possible for a problem that is firmly rooted in a faulty diet and lack of exercise. Virtually 100 percent of type 2 diabetes cases can be successfully treated and reversed through appropriate lifestyle changes
• Complications occur for both types of weight loss surgery, gastric banding and the more invasive gastric bypass. Research has shown your risk of dying within 30 days of gastric bypass surgery is 1 in 50, and 60 percent of patients who undergo gastric banding need to have additional surgery
• Your diet is not only the most effective way to reverse type 2 diabetes, it’s the ONLY way to correct the true underlying cause of diabetes, which is faulty insulin and leptin signaling. To reverse the disease, you need to recover your body’s insulin and leptin sensitivities through proper diet and exercise, as detailed in my free nutrition plan

 

By Dr. Mercola

The Cleveland Clinic recently published its Top 10 Medical Inventions for 2013 list¹. Doctors and researchers at the Clinic voted for what they thought were the most significant inventions out of 250 submitted ideas.

Noted medical inventions include an implantable neuromodulation device for the treatment of severe cluster headaches, a handheld melanoma detection device, a novel prostate cancer drug, and breast tomosynthesis (a.k.a 3D mammography).

But shockingly, and really almost unbelievably, topping the list at number one is using bariatric surgery for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

According to the Cleveland Clinic:

“Surgery for obesity, often called bariatric surgery, shrinks the stomach into a small pouch and rearranges the digestive tract so that food enters the small intestine at a later point than usual. 

Over the years, many doctors performing weight-loss operations found that the surgical procedure would rid patients of Type 2 diabetes, oftentimes before the patient left the hospital.

To explore this diabetes treatment hypothesis, 150 patients with Type 2 diabetes and obesity were enrolled in a study in 2007. 50 patients had gastric bypass surgery. 

This is a procedure that reduces stomach volume from the size of an inflated football to a golf ball size; 50 had a sleeve gastrectomy surgery, which reduces the stomach from the size of a football to that of a banana; and 50 were offered counseling in nutrition and exercise while they continued taking their diabetes medication.

By closing off most of the stomach to food, people who received bariatric surgery ate less and, therefore, lost weight. Patients in the study lost about five times as much weight on average as those only taking bloodsugar-lowering medications.

The study results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2012, astounded the medical world. 

Compared with patients taking diabetes medication and receiving lifestyle counseling, those who had bariatric surgery were far more likely to be free of diabetes or to have reduced their dependence on diabetes medications for at least two years. The weight-loss surgery also helped many to lower their blood pressure and cholesterol. Most of the patients went from a dozen or more medications daily to none or just a few.”

Dr. Michael Roizen, Cleveland Clinic Chief Wellness Officer, told Reuters²:

“Bariatric surgery has been around for a while. The reason it was chosen as the top innovation is because Medicare has broadened its indication for payment, and Medicaid in many states follows Medicare. 

A lot of the other (private) insurance companies started covering it, so it’s much more accessible. The criteria that insurers use to cover the surgery has been broadened because of its effectiveness in controlling Type 2 diabetes.”

While this will probably sound wonderful to some, there’s no doubt in my mind that this is absolutely the wrong treatment and not at all an appropriate solution for the vast majority of people, and that’s what this list is all about — one of the primary criteria for making it onto the list was the number of people the product or procedure can potentially help.

Bariatric surgery as a treatment for type 2 diabetes is a prescription for the most invasive and costly (not to mention risky) intervention possible for a problem that is firmly rooted in a faulty diet and lack of exercise… What makes this recommendations particularly troublesome is that virtually 100 percent of type 2 diabetes cases can be successfully treated and reversed through appropriate lifestyle changes!

It’s also blatantly clear (they even state it outright) that it topped the list because Medicare (i.e. your tax dollars) will now pay for it, NOT because it’s been proven safe and effective.

On the contrary, they appear to base their opinion on the results from a singular study. This is probably ill advised.

Dr. John Ioannidis of the Stanford School of Medicine in California warns against placing too much faith in singular medical studies showing large effects of medical treatment (benefits or harms). His massive analysis, recently published in JAMA,³tracked the fate of thousands of studies, from the effects demonstrated in the initial study, compared to the effects elucidated in subsequent trials.

Interestingly, in 90 percent of cases where “very large” effects were initially reported, such effects shrank or vanished altogether as subsequent studies were done to confirm the results. Dr. Ioannidis told Reuters⁴:

“Our analysis suggests it is better to wait to see if these very large effects get replicated or not… Keep some healthy skepticism about claims for silver bullets, perfect cures, and huge effects.”

In the case of weight loss surgery, there are already a number of studies showing both bariatric surgery and gastric banding are very risky procedures that produce poor long-term outcomes! But of course, that only means the revenue stream from those suffering with type 2 diabetes will continue to flow, and apparently that’s what really matters and drives medical recommendations in the US…

Nearly Half of Weight Loss Surgeries Result in Major Complications

All surgeries have inherent risks, but bariatric surgeries seem to have a much higher ratio of complications. Complications occur for both types of weight loss surgery, gastric banding and the more invasive gastric bypass.

For example, a study from 2004⁵ reported that the risk of dying within 30 days of gastric bypass surgery was 1 in 50.  And, within the surgeon’s first 19 procedures, the odds of death within 30 days were 4.7 times higher, due to inexperience.

Gastric banding consists of surgically inserting a band around the top section of your stomach, and cinching it into a small pouch. This is often touted as a simpler, less invasive procedure to gastric bypass, and whereas gastric banding is at least reversible, while gastric bypass is not, the complications are often so debilitating that patients opt to have the bands removed completely. According to research⁶ published last year, nearly 40 percent of patients who undergo gastric banding experience major complications, including:

Band erosion	Malnutrition	Infection
Kidney stones	Bowel and gallbladder problems	Liver failure
Black-outs	Increased risk of death	Abnormal band expansion

 

Furthermore, the study found that:

• Nearly 50 percent of patients required removal of their bands
• Nearly 1 out of 3 patients experienced band erosion
• 60 percent needed to undergo additional surgery

The researchers concluded that:

“LAGB [laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding] appears to result in relatively poor long-term outcomes.”

Even according to LapBand.com, one American clinical study that included a 3-year follow-up reported a staggering 88 percent of gastric banding patients experienced one or more adverse events, ranging from mild to severe. Common complications, from gastric banding included the following — and keep in mind that excess weight increases your risks even further, which meanseveryone who undergoes weight loss surgery is at even greater risk:

Gastroesophageal reflux	Band slippage and/or pouch dilation	Stomach obstruction
Esophageal dilation	Reduced esophageal function	Difficulty swallowing
Leaking or twisted access port into the stomach	Band eroding into the stomach

Gastric Bypass Will Wreak Havoc on Your Digestive Processes and Ability to Absorb Nutrients

Gastric bypass involves stapling your stomach into a pouch that’s only a half-ounce in size, so it literally cannot hold much. The idea is that you’ll feel full faster, since your stomach will be unnaturally tiny, but this also means you’ll often be eating meals that are sorely lacking in nutritional requirements.

A small opening is also created to allow food to empty slowly from the pouch. Because the opening is so small (made this way deliberately to keep the small amount of food you’ve eaten in your stomach longer, making you feel “full”), food must be chewed very thoroughly or it won’t be able to fit through the opening, leading to vomiting.

You’ll also be instructed to eat the protein portion of your meal first, because you very well may get too full to fit in a vegetable or anything else. Even liquids must be restricted for up to 45 minutes before and after a meal, lest they take up what little space you have to consume actual food. As you might suspect, because bariatric surgery patients can consume very little roughage, constipation is often a problem. It is even described as “normal” to have a bowel movement only once every two or three days!

Snacking is also expressly forbidden after gastric bypass, as you’re only allowed three small meals a day, and you may have to write off certain foods entirely because your body just can’t digest them anymore. This includes red meats, skins of fruits and vegetables (where the bulk of the antioxidants are) and fibrous vegetables. This is simply NOT a healthy way of eating, and the long-term implications are just as severe as the short-term risks. Hair loss and muscle loss are common after the surgery — both signs that your body is not receiving proper nutrition.

Proper Diet — The Most Important Strategy to Reverse Type 2 Diabetes

What makes this so frustratingly ironic, if not downright tragic, is that your diet is not only the most effective way to reversetype 2 diabetes, it’s the ONLY way! Yet the medical community keeps coming up with one bad diabetes treatment after the other, and I think they’ve really hit it out of the park with this one — all because Medicare and insurance companies will pay for it…

Seven years ago, Dr. Ron Rosedale wrote the article Doctors Cause Diabetics to D.I.E., and if you have type 2 diabetes, or know someone who does, you’d be well advised to read what he has to say on this matter.

“I have been incensed about the traditional medical treatment of diabetes for decades,” Dr. Rosedale writes. “Diabetics have been told that they can eat meals multiple times daily that turn into sugar and even sugar itself, as long as they take enough insulin to lower their blood sugar.

The importance of limiting the intake of sugar and foods that turn into sugar has been almost totally ignored. There has been virtually no recognition that high levels of insulin are at least as much of an insult to a person’s health as high levels of sugar (see Insulin and its Metabolic Effects).

With blinders on, drugs have been and are still being given to lower blood sugar, even though they essentially whip the islet cells of the pancreas to produce more insulin. These unfortunate, overstressed islet cells have been producing excess insulin for years and often decades to try to compensate for the insensitivity, the resistance of the body’s cells to insulin’s signal.

This is much like whipping a horse to run faster at the end of a race; it runs faster for a little while, but if you keep doing it, it collapses and dies.

So too do the islet cells that manufacture insulin in the pancreas die when drugs, nay doctors, whip them to keep producing more insulin when they are tired and sick. At this point, a diabetic, who originally had plenty of insulin being produced, and whose problem was merely one of insulin resistance that is easily remedied via proper treatment and diet, now starts losing the ability to produce insulin and becomes, in addition to insulin resistant, insulin deficient; a much more serious and problematic disorder caused by Doctor Induced Exacerbation (DIE).”

Reversing Type 2 Diabetes Sans Surgery or Drugs

Amazingly, one in four Americans has some form of diabetes or pre-diabetes. If this is not a clear sign that conventional health recommendations are flawed, I don’t know what is.

I too have personal experience with this disease. I developed it myself at one time, and most of my paternal relatives (my dad included), have, or have died from, diabetes.  My personal experience with diabetes and subsequent review of the literature made it VERY clear to me that virtually every case of type 2 diabetes is reversible… And the cure for type 2 diabetes has NOTHING to do with giving insulin or taking drugs to control your blood sugar.  In fact, giving insulin to someone with type 2 diabetes is one of the worst things that can be done. Any physician still doing this suffers from profound ignorance of insulin physiology.

It’s important to understand that many of the conventional recommendations for treating diabetes are not only flawed but dead wrong.  If you need a refresher, please review my previous article, Deaths Halt Diabetes Study. Once you understand that type 2 diabetes is a fully preventable condition that arises from faulty leptin signaling and insulin resistance, the remedy will become clear.

To reverse the disease, you need to recover your body’s insulin and leptin sensitivities!

How do you do that? As mentioned earlier, the ONLY way to accomplish this is through proper diet and exercise, as detailed in my free Nutrition Plan. Surgery will not do the trick, and there is NO drug that can correct leptin signaling and insulin resistance… Adhering to the following guidelines can help you do at least three things that are essential for successfully treating diabetes: recover your insulin/leptin sensitivity; normalize your weight; and normalize your blood pressure:

• Severely limit or eliminate sugar and grains in your diet, especially fructose which is far more detrimental than any other type of sugar. Following my Nutrition Plan will help you do this without too much fuss.
• Exercise regularly. Exercise is an absolutely essential factor, and without it, you’re unlikely to get this devastating disease under control. It is one of the fastest and most powerful ways to lower your insulin and leptin resistance. If you’re unsure of how to get started, I recommend reviewing my Peak Fitness program for tips and guidelines.
• Avoid trans fats.
• Get plenty of omega-3 fats from a high quality, animal-based source, such as krill oil.
• Optimize your vitamin D levels. Recent studies have revealed that getting enough vitamin D can have a powerful effect on normalizing your blood pressure and that low vitamin D levels may increase your risk of heart disease.
• Optimize your gut flora. Your gut is a living ecosystem, full of both good bacteria and bad. Multiple studies have shown that obese people have different intestinal bacteria than lean people. The more good bacteria you have, the stronger your immune system will be and the better your body will function overall. Fortunately, optimizing your gut flora is relatively easy. You can reseed your body with good bacteria by eating fermented foods (such as fermented vegetables, natto, raw organic cheese, or raw milk kefir) or by taking a high quality probiotic supplement.
• Address any underlying emotional issues and/or stress. Non-invasive tools like the Emotional Freedom Technique can be helpful and effective.
• Get enough high-quality sleep every night.
• Monitor your fasting insulin level. This is every bit as important as your fasting blood sugar. You’ll want your fasting insulin level to be between 2 and 4. The higher your level, the worse your insulin sensitivity is.

Read Full Post »

Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)

 

by Dawn Prate

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman’s chances of survival by at least 17 percent.

The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.

 

Effectiveness of Mammography

Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren’t tumors at all. These “false positives” aren’t just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or “false negatives.” Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.

 

Radiation Risks

Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.

According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.

Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.

Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman’s breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.

The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because “the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.” Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.

 

Navigating the Statistics

While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40 percent in the United States.

Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases. While the matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms.

The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.

Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they may even do more harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.

 

New Screening Technologies

While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.

Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.

 

The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:

Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

In his book, “Preventing Breast Cancer,” Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman’s genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23

“The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination,” the panel explained. “Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537

No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23

The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291

A number of “cancer societies” argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each – - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21

Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman’s breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540

Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104

Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132

The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI’s assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI’s continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI’s failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544

High Rate of False Positives—mammography’s high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these “callbacks” result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

“Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure,” continued the panel. “Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.”
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, “We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%.”
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467

Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of “missed tumors,” resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42

Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305

Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123

As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject’s chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled “About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic” (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
Dr Isadore Rosenfeld’s Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47

In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12

One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57

One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233

Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
Woman’s Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53

Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn’t as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there’s not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234 For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient’s body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587

Read Full Post »

Antidepressant drugs are murdering babies before they’re even born

Antidepressant drugs are murdering babies before they’re even born: SSRIs cause birth defects, miscarriages and complications

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Big Pharma wants pregnant women to take prescription drugs, vaccine shots and even chemotherapy. It’s the latest insanity from an industry that kills more Americans ever year than died in the entire Vietnam War. And the latest science reveals that antidepressant use during pregnancy is causing babies to be born with physical defects – or sometimes not born at all because they’re miscarried.

This disturbing new science published in the journal Human Reproduction was authored by Dr. Adam Urato, obstetrician and chairman of thedepartment of obstetrics and gynecology at MetroWest Medical Center in Framingham, Mass., and Dr. Alice Domar, a psychologist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

The study shows drastically increased rates of birth defects in children who are exposed to SSRI drugs (antidepressants) while in the womb. The risk of miscarriages also skyrockets with antidepressant drug use during pregnancy.

Study author Dr. Urato is also warning that at least 40 studies now link SSRI use during pregnancy with pre-term births.

The abstract of the study lays out the findings in clear language:

Antidepressant use during pregnancy is associated with increased risks of miscarriage, birth defects, preterm birth, newborn behavioral syndrome, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn and possible longer term neurobehavioral effects.

As The Telegraph reports:

The situation amounts to “a large scale human experiment”, according to Dr Adam Urato, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts. Drugs firms were overstating the benefits and underplaying the risks for the sake of profit, he claimed. Family doctors were failing to grasp the true dangers and tell pregnant patients of them, he argued.

Antidepressants double risk of babies being born with autism

“A recent study has further documented some doctors’ concerns that the use of SSRIs increases the risk of babies being born with autism. This particular research indicates the antidepressants double the risk,” reports DrugWatch.com

In addition, antidepressants offer no benefit to pregnancy outcomes! As stated by the study authors:

“There is no evidence of improved pregnancy outcomes with antidepressant use.”

In other words, antidepressants deliver all sorts of risks, but virtually no benefits, especially considering that even the psychological “benefits” of SSRI drugs are completely fabricated by the corrupt pharmaceutical industry which routinely fabricates clinical trial data.

Mainstream media tries to downplay risk

The mainstream media is, of course, incessantly running cover for the toxic pharmaceutical industry. That’s why instead of seeing headlines that warn about “birth defects” from SSRIs, you get headlines like this one from a local Fox affiliate:

“Antidepressants during pregnancy can be tricky”
(http://fox13now.com/2012/11/01/antidepressants-during-pregnancy-can-b…)

Tricky? The story then goes on to push the warped psychiatric “view” of these drugs, which is essentially that everybody needs to be medicated in order to be normal. And that includes pregnant women.

The entire charade is so sick and even criminal that it’s hard to even watch. If an herbal supplement were causing birth defects, you wouldn’t see the media reporting that decision about the herbal supplement are “tricky.” Instead, you would see the media SCREAMING about how dangerous and deadly the supplement was, demanding the FDA to take immediate action to ban the substance and pull it from store shelves.

But somehow, when prescription drugs cause miscarriages and birth defects, it’s all okay because the drug companies are involved.

Murdering babies is perfectly fine, you see, as long as Big Pharma and the psychiatric industry and pocketing some cash at the same time.

And don’t forget: Vaccines are also being pushed on pregnant women now, even though throughout the history of medicine pregnant women were always warned to avoid vaccines due to mercury toxicity. But suddenly, the authorities and the drug companies want to inject pregnant women with as much mercury as possible.

It’s not just mercury, either: As Natural News has just exposed in a shocking new article, even the CDC openly admits that today’s vaccines are made with MSG, mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum — on purpose!

And what’s one of the most common side effects of all these toxic metals and chemicals in vaccines? Spontaneous abortions, of course.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9632588/Thousands-of-pre…
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/10/31/humrep.des3…

 

Read Full Post »

Unnecessary surgery exposed! Why 60% of all surgeries are medically unjustified and how surgeons exploit patients to generate profits

by Alexis Black

Every year millions of Americans go under the knife, but many of them are enduring great pain and shelling out thousands of dollars for surgeries they don’t really need. In fact, the only people who seem to really benefit from these unnecessary medical procedures are the medical professionals who stand to make exorbitant amounts of money from performing them.

An estimated 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed each year, writes Gary Null, PhD., in Death by Medicine. Rather than reverse the problems they purport to fix, these unwarranted procedures can often lead to greater health problems and even death. A 1995 report by Milliman & Robertson, Inc. concluded that nearly 60 percent of all surgeries performed are medically unnecessary, according to Under The Influence of Modern Medicine by Terry A. Rondberg. Some of the most major and frequently performed unnecessary surgeries include hysterectomies, Cesarean sections and coronary artery bypass surgeries.

 

Coronary bypasses are the most common unnecessary surgeries in America

In a nation plagued by heart disease, it often seems that the knee-jerk reaction of American doctors is to treat heart problems with surgery. However, many of the heart surgeries performed each year are unnecessary procedures that could be putting the patients’ lives at greater risk. “(W)hen faced with heart disease, doctors recommend a bypass. By so doing, we think, they bypass the real problem. Bypasses are the single most commonly performed unnecessary surgery in the country,” write Dr. Mark Hyman and Dr. Mark Liponis in Ultraprevention. In fact, according to Burton Goldberg, author of Heart Disease, most coronary artery bypass surgeries and angioplasties produce no real benefit to the patient and dangerous side effects like stroke or brain damage may result from the operations. “Coronary artery bypass surgery is called an ‘overprescribed and unnecessary surgery’ by many leading authorities,” Goldberg writes. “Complications from such treatments are common and the expense to the health care system is extraordinarily high. In 1994, an estimated 501,000 bypass surgeries at $44,000 each were performed on Americans, 47 percent of which were done on men.”

 

Women are at an especially high risk of unnecessary surgery

Women may be at an especially high risk for unwarranted operations, since hysterectomies and Cesarean sections also top the list of “overprescribed and unnecessary” surgeries. Of the approximately 750,000 hysterectomies performed each year, 90 percent are unnecessary, writes Goldberg in Alternative Medicine, making the removal of a woman’s uterus one of the most commonly performed unnecessary surgeries. And the risk that comes with an unwarranted hysterectomy is high. “Each year 750,000 hysterectomies are performed and 2,500 women die during the operation. These are not sick women, but healthy women who go into the hospital and do not come out,” says Dr. Herbert Goldfarb, a gynecologist and assistant clinical professor at New York University’s School of Medicine, in Null’s Woman’s Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing.

Women are also frequently subjected to Caesarean sections they don’t really need. With an estimated 920,000 Cesarean births performed each year, the Cesarean has become the “most common major surgery in America” and it is four times more likely a woman will give birth via cesarean section today than it was in 1970, according to The Medical Racket by Martin L. Gross. Women are also at special risk for receiving unwarranted surgeries because of the results of a mammogram, since the high rate of false positives in mammography often leads to invasive procedures. Women who do not even have cancer to begin with are treated for breast cancer, Goldberg writes. That’s right: These women’s bodies are carved up and altered and they aren’t even sick. So why does this happen?

 

Needless surgeries mean higher profits for doctors and hospitals

It may seem unfathomable to think a doctor could be so careless as to perform an operation that doesn’t need to be done, but it has been happening for years, from the more minor routinely- performed tonsillectomies of the past to the invasive heart procedures, hysterectomies, back surgeries and more of today. “(T)he reality is that unnecessary surgery, whether performed by doctors who operate out of ignorance, self-delusion, or simple greed has long plagued medicine and today still reaches epidemic proportions.” writes Gross. It may be hard to stomach the idea that doctors are capable of operating out of greed for more money, but some feel that is exactly what is happening. “American physicians are generally way too eager to use the surgeon’s knife to carve up and chop out whatever they think is ailing you, at great expense to you and great profit to them and the hospitals they work for,” write Earl Mindell and Virginia Hopkins in Prescription Alternatives.

When it comes to heart surgeries, Heart Frauds author Dr. Charles T. McGee writes, “As Harvard professor Braunwald predicted, a financial empire has developed around surgical procedures on the heart. With so many powerful vested interests involved, it will be difficult to change how American doctors treat patients with coronary artery disease. No one who is currently gaining from the system has any incentive to try to stop the unnecessary costs and suffering.” In other words, surgery makes money and surgery is what medical professionals are trained to do, so rather than exert the time and energy to try more conservative treatments that could threaten their very careers, medical professionals often turn to surgery as their most immediate and financially logical avenue. “The economic incentive for a physician to operate on you is great. Surgeries make doctors a lot of money. Doctors are human beings and they are not immune to the lure of bigger profits,” according to Prescription Medicines, Side Effects and Natural Alternatives by American Medical Publishing.

One extreme case involving a doctor knowingly reaping the financial benefits of unnecessary surgeries occurred in California, where an ophthalmologist managed to bill Medicare $46 million over four years for unwarranted operations he performed on his patients. “According to the government, he created a ‘surgery mill,’ in which he falsified patient records to justify numerous unnecessary cataract and eyelid operations. In addition to this wholesale theft, he put his patients through unneeded pain and worry,” writes Gross. It is also important to note in all of this that unnecessary surgery is not considered medical malpractice, according to Rondberg in Under the Influence of Modern Medicine, which makes it even more important for patients to protect themselves by looking into all possible avenues before going under the knife.

If you imagine for a moment being knocked out, sliced open and having a part of your body removed for no logical reason, it sounds more like a nightmare than a visit to the hospital. But that’s what is happening to millions in American hospitals every year. We are having organs and body parts removed without reason, and for what? Why are we so willing to give our bodies over to a person wielding a very sharp knife and some very strong drugs? Maybe it’s because we trust that our doctors will do what is best for us, since, after all, we don’t have the medical training they do. But when it comes to your body and your health, it’s okay to be skeptical and to want all the information you can get. The bottom line is: Surgery is not something to be taken lightly. When confronted with the suggestion that you need to go under the knife, it’s important to remember that you have a choice. Don’t just trust one doctor to know what’s best for you. Get a second opinion. It could mean the difference between life and death.

The experts speak on unjustified surgery:

A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 10

Annually, between 20 million and 25 million surgical procedures are carried out among all the specialties except plastic surgery. This study determined that between 15% and 29% were unnecessary. For example, 27% of the women who had hysterectomies, the second most common surgery, didn’t need the operation!
Health In The 21st Century by Fransisco Contreras MD, page 212

Despite what appears to be an attempt by the medical profession to keep that kind of information from the public, a few reports have surfaced which show clearly that the problem with unnecessary surgeries is not a thing of the past. In a 1995 report issued by Milliman & Robertson, Inc., titled “Analysis of Medically Unnecessary Inpatient Services,” researchers David V. Axene, FSA and Richard Doyle, M.D., concluded that “the level of medically unnecessary use may actually be closer to 60%” (than their previously projected 53%). This included a variety of surgical procedures as well as associated services. That same year, the federal government’s Agency for Health Care Policy Research (AHCPR) concluded that most back surgery was unnecessary. Back surgeons immediately began a campaign to abolish the agency. Other reports confirm this frightening statistic.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 132

Women with urinary incontinence are often advised to get bladder surgery, even hysterectomies. But this drastic approach may be completely unnecessary, according to Dr. Hufnagel, who says that women need to be educated about more conservative treatments for this common everyday occurrence.
Womans Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 26

The Harvard University School of Public Health estimates that as many as 1.3 million Americans suffer disabling injuries in hospitals yearly, and 198,000 of those may result in death; 7 out of 10 of which were preventable (48% from faulty surgery), and 1/3 from negligence.
Anti-Aging Manual by Joseph B Marion, page 100

Almost thirty years ago, in 1974, the Congressional Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce held hearings on unnecessary surgery. They found that 17.6% of recommendations for surgery were not confirmed by a second opinion. The House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations extrapolated these figures and estimated that, on a nationwide basis, there were 2.4 million unnecessary surgeries performed annually, resulting in 11,900 deaths at an annual cost of $3.9 billion.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 19

One surprising discovery in recent research is that smoking is the cause of 28 percent of urinary incontinence in women. Studies indicate that surgery and the use of pharmaceuticals are often unnecessary; other methods that have proven effective are behavioral techniques and biofeedback, Kegel exercises, which strengthen pelvic muscles, electrical stimulation of the pelvic floor, and acupuncture. A natural treatment, according to one study, can be extracted from the plant marshmallow; this helps incontinence by treating inflammation of the genito-urinary tract.
Womans Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 26

Unfortunately for millions each year, this may not be the case. They may instead be victims of powerful medical propaganda that makes every operation seem essential. But the reality is that unnecessary surgery, whether performed by doctors who operate out of ignorance, self-delusion, or simple greed has long plagued medicine and today still reaches epidemic proportions.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 176

The unnecessary surgery figures are escalating just as prescription drugs driven by television advertising. Media-driven surgery such as gastric bypass for obesity “modeled” by Hollywood personalities seduces obese people to think this route is safe and sexy. There is even a problem of surgery being advertised on the Internet.76 A study in Spain declares that between 20 and 25% of total surgical practice represents unnecessary operations.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 19

In his book, “Health Shock,” journalist Martin Weitz reported that a 1974 Senate investigation into unnecessary surgery found that “American doctors performed 2.4 million unnecessary operations, causing 11,900 deaths and costing $3.9 billion.” In 1982, Robert G. Schneider, M.D., calculated that between 15 and 25% of all surgeries were unnecessary — with that figure rising to 50-60% with some types of operations. In the case of tonsillectomies and hysterectomies, the percentage was as high as 40-80%.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 131

Some studies suggest that almost 40 percent of surgical operations in the United States are unnecessary.
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 333

A 1987 JAMA study found the following significant levels of inappropriate surgery: 17% of cases for coronary angiography, 32% for carotid endarterectomy, and 17% for upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy. Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) statistics provided by the government for 2001, the number of people getting upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, which usually entails biopsy, was 697,675; the number getting endarterectomy was 142,401; and the number having coronary angiography was 719,949.13 Therefore, according to the JAMA study 17%, or 118,604 people had an unnecessary endoscopy procedure. Endarterectomy occurred in 142,401 patients; potentially 32% or 45,568 did not need this procedure. And 17% of 719,949, or 122,391 people receiving coronary angiography were subjected to this highly invasive procedure unnecessarily. These are all forms of medical iatrogenesis.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 20

Your best defense against an unnecessary hysterectomy? Information—and a second opinion, says Nora W. Coffey, president of Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services, an educational organization in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. Educational organizations can supply information about the surgery.
Woman’s Encyclopedia by Denise Foley, page 219

Overlapping of statistics in Death by Medicine may occur with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) paper that designates “medical error” as including drugs, surgery, and unnecessary procedures. Since we have also included other statistics on adverse drug reactions, surgery and, unnecessary procedures, perhaps as much as 50% of the IOM number could be redundant. However, even taking away half the 98,000 IOM number still leaves us with iatrogenic events as the number one killer at 738,000 annual deaths.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 10

When in doubt about the diagnosis or recommendation, don’t hesitate to get a second opinion —or a second diagnostic test. Your best defense against an unnecessary hysterectomy is obtaining information before you meet with the doctor. Read books, find people who’ve had the surgery (or the alternatives), contact support groups, locate medical literature. And then show them to your doctor, says Nora W. Coffey, president of Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. “That’s the way to get a doctor’s cooperation, and not hostility.” And take control in making the decision, she encourages. Get comprehensive information about the condition you have, your options and the risks and dangers of the options.
Woman’s Encyclopedia by Denise Foley, page 222

Stressors create a field of disturbance in the energetic web of the body. These fields of disturbance are most often in the head, because the mouth is where we most readily allow thoughtless or unnecessary surgery, excessive procedures, and implantation of foreign materials. The results of the disturbance can be felt anywhere in the body and can virtually block any treatment’s effectiveness.
Whole Body Dentistry by Mark A Breiner DDS, page 159

Unwarranted Surgery and Heart Related Problems:

YOU DON’T HAVE TO DIE: Angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery are frequently unnecessary and produce no benefit to the patient at all. Some people endure multiple operations (one patient whose case is discussed in this book underwent 14 angioplasties) without result or their condition returns later. In addition, bypass surgery is dangerous, many people suffering strokes or other damage to their brain as a result of the operation.
Heart Disease by Burton Goldberg, page 10

The bottom line is this: when patients are advised to have a coronary angiogram, chances are eight out of ten that they do not need it. The critical factor in whether a patient needs coronary artery bypass surgery or angioplasty is how well the left ventricular pump is working, not the degree of blockage or the number of arteries affected. The left ventricle (chamber) of the heart is responsible for pumping oxygenated blood through the aorta (the large artery emanating from the heart) and to the rest of the body. Bypass surgery is only helpful when the ejection fraction (the amount of blood pumped by the left ventricle) is less than forty percent of capacity. Up to ninety percent of all bypass procedures are done when the ejection fraction is greater than 50 percent, which is adequate for circulatory needs. In other words, as many as 90 percent of all bypass procedures may be unnecessary.
Encyclopedia Of Natural Medicine by Michael T Murray MD Joseph L Pizzorno ND, page 243

Dr. Whitaker views most of the current therapies available to heart disease patients as needless and unjustified. Most are ineffective in terms of actually stopping and/or reversing the deterioration that has begun by the time the patient seeks treatment. Catheterization, for example, has insufficient scientific basis in Dr. Whitaker’s opinion, yet thousands of catheterizations are done almost routinely. Catheterizations are used to detect arterial blockages and to open them up, often in conjunction with a balloon angioplasty or a bypass. The angioplasty technique, as explained earlier, is an invasive method of trying to force open blocked spots within the arteries, while bypass surgery involves severing the artery before the blockage and rerouting the blood flow through an unblocked vein taken from the leg.
Get Healthy Now by Gary Null, page 411

Recent clinical and laboratory studies have seriously questioned the validity of the theory that a blocked coronary artery is the primary cause of a heart attack. The angiogram, an invasive test to evaluate coronary artery blockages, poses significant risks, and has often been discredited. In many cases, bypass surgery is considered unnecessary and dangerous.
Healing Myths by Donald M Epstein, page 69

A team of conservative cardiologists in Brigham Hospital, Boston, evaluated 88 patients that had been scheduled for cardiac bypass surgery. They advised against surgery for 74 of the 88. Among those 74, 60 accepted a second opinion and didn’t have the operation. These patients were followed for a period of two years plus. Only two had minor attacks that could be treated conservatively, an outcome comparable to that of the 14 (scared not to take the advise of the conservative specialists) patients that underwent open-heart surgery. In short, a vast number of patients are submitted to unnecessary procedures by cardiologists.
Health In The 21st Century by Fransisco Contreras MD, page 212

A second opinion clinic was opened in Boston in 1982. The first published study from the clinic involved 88 patients who had been advised to have cabbage surgery elsewhere on the basis of ordinary angiograms. Some had been referred by insurance carriers who were hoping to get out of paying some large bills. Large insurance companies are well aware that about 85 percent of cabbages are unnecessary, and teach this fact during private seminars for their executives. However, they don’t make this public.
Heart Frauds by Charles T McGee MD, page 36

On the brighter side, several studies have confirmed it is possible to evaluate heart patients with non-invasive means and identify people who will do well with medical management alone. In the best of all worlds, this should become the wave of the future. But this will never occur as long as these crises situations remain under the control of people who are becoming rich by doing unnecessary surgical procedures.
Heart Frauds by Charles T McGee MD, page 39

Three of these studies were published in leading medical journals. No efforts were made to attract media attention to the embarrassing results. If the media had picked up the story they could have accurately reported, “The diagnostic test used to scare the pants off heart disease patients and coerce them into billions of dollars of unnecessary surgical procedures is a scam.” The information was ignored by physicians and never picked up by the press.
Heart Frauds by Charles T McGee MD, page 14

I have attacked myths about heart disease that cost Americans billions of dollars per year in unnecessary surgical procedures, as well as untold suffering. The list of abuses can start with the widespread use of inaccurate angiograms that are used to plan surgical procedures. People are conditioned to expect to live longer if they have cabbage surgery, but survival rates are not improved with surgery. The system encourages doctors who are learning to do balloon angioplasties to practice on people who don’t need any surgical procedure. Long term survival after balloon angioplasty has never been studied. The cholesterol theory is an empty shell. These approaches to our number one killer disease represent a fraud against the people more often than not.
Heart Frauds by Charles T McGee MD, page 161

For example, bypass surgery for heart disease, at an average cost of $44,000 per operation, is “one of the most unnecessary operations of all,” says McTaggart. Heart surgeons have known since the 1970s that bypass does not improve survival except for patients with severe left ventricle coronary disease, while U.S. government statistics state that about 90% of patients receive no benefit. The “miracle cure” of beta blockers to lower high blood pressure (hypertension) also evaporates when you look at the outcomes, McTaggart says. A British study of 2,000 patients with high blood pressure showed that in barely 50% of the cases blood pressure dropped to a moderately healthy level as a result of taking hypertension drugs.
Heart Disease by Burton Goldberg, page 23

Yet when faced •with heart disease, doctors recommend a bypass. By so doing, we think, they bypass the real problem. Bypasses are the single most commonly performed unnecessary surgery in the country. Only two groups have been shown to benefit from bypass surgery: one, those whose arteries are so badly clogged that the heart can no longer beat adequately, and two, those with severe blockage in the main artery to the heart and signs of resulting poor blood flow.
Ultraprevention by Mark Hyman MD and Mark Liponis MD, page 68

Pierce now knew the research in the field of nonlocal medicine inside and out. She was amazed that many physicians ignored the evidence. Their reasons, she suspected, were rooted in the tendency of humans to hang onto what is familiar and comfortable. Many physicians, for example, continued to do coronary bypass surgery the old way, opening up the chest cavity, instead of using the new percutaneous fiberoptic methods that made open-chest surgery unnecessary.
Reinventing Medicine by Larry Dossey MD, page 184

The departments of health of each state should conduct a study, at least every two years, on the success of such common operations as bypass surgery and angioplasty, as does New York State. In addition, they should publish risk-adjusted figures on breast cancer recovery and other common illnesses, along with the rates of unnecessary surgery as compiled by an independent board of surgeons.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 99

Unnecessary Bypass Operations Coronary cirtery bypass operations have had a better record than the neck artery surgery. Earlier studies of the heart operation—in 1979,1980, and 1982—also showed some evidence of surgical mayhem. Fourteen percent of the surgeries were “inappropriate” or unnecessary, defined as “performing the procedure under circumstances where the medical risk exceeded the medical benefits.” The fourteen percent was high, but much less than the carotid surgical extravagance. But the unnecessary rate for bypass operations has now been reduced considerably by new techniques and better choices by patients.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 189

An outspoken critic is Thomas A. Preston, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Preston claims fully one half of all cabbage surgeries performed in the United States are unnecessary. He says that survival rates are basically the same as with medical management, except for a well-defined minority of patients, and in most cases cabbage surgery is no more effective than a placebo.
Heart Frauds by Charles T McGee MD, page 32

Race has been found to play a role in who gets cabbaged and who does not. Nationally the rate of having a cabbage surgery runs 27.1 per 10,000 whites per year, and only 7.6 per 10,000 blacks. Hospital admission rates for coronary artery disease for the two races are the same. The authors concluded that racial prejudice appears to influence cabbage surgery rates. There is another way of viewing this study. Black people with coronary artery disease are being spared a lot of unnecessary heart surgery because of racial discrimination.
Heart Frauds by Charles T McGee MD, page 35

These unusual treatments may make open-heart surgery unnecessary for many heart patients. If your doctor recommends angioplasty or bypass surgery for your angina, ask him about these new options before making a decision.
Natural Cures And Gentle Medicines by The Editors of FC&A Medical Publishing, page 23

Unjustified Surgery – Hysterectomy:

Hysterectomy: A hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) is another risk factor for early osteoporosis, even if the ovaries are still intact. “This is because anywhere between 16% and 57% of all women who undergo uterus removal suffer from premature loss of ovarian function with its associated rapid bone loss,” explains Dr. Brown.24 Unfortunately, this surgery, a conventional medical solution for uterine fibroids and endometriosis, is all too common among premenopausal women. Every year in the U.S., 750,000 women undergo hysterectomies (many including ovary removal); about 90% of these are unnecessary.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 841

Hysterectomy may also be performed after cesarean section in cases of complications such as uncontrolled bleeding, gross infection, or cancer of the cervix. Once misused in the belief that removing the uterus (and often the ovaries) would control what were considered inappropriate sexual urges and ambitions, it is still the most common unnecessary surgery.
Britannica Encyclopedia Volume One, page 901

Nearly half of all hysterectomies performed in the United States are medically unnecessary. According to the People’s Medical Society, in 1970 one in twenty babies was delivered by Cesarean section rather than normal vaginal childbirth. Today, one in four babies is delivered by Cesarean section. (Interestingly, both surgeries are performed on women.)
How to get out of the hospital alive by Sheldon P Blau MD FACP FACR, page 142

Many people question the fact that over 650,000 hysterectomies are performed in the United States each year. Very few of these operations are performed because of a life-threatening situation, and it is likely that many of them are actually unnecessary. Per capita, half as many hysterectomies are performed in Great Britain as in the United States, and, statistically, American women show no health benefits for their higher incidence of surgery. Outside the United States, very few hysterectomies are performed for what doctors often term “quality of life” reasons.
Prescription For Nutritional Healing by Phyllis A Balch CNC and James F Balch MD, page 453

Obviously, despite the shortage of reports from the medical profession itself, the problem of unnecessary surgeries is still a serious one. Yet, ironically, unnecessary surgery normally is not considered medical malpractice. According to “Medicine on Trial,” a People’s Medical Society book: “When greed controls the impulse to operate when an operation is not called for, as is often the case in unnecessary surgery, such an operation is certainly a grossly unethical and immoral act, but not a medical mistake per se.” The ultimate solution is prevention. But when, as a last resort, surgery must be considered, patients need to have full and honest information about the risks and benefits involved in the procedure.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 132

UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MODERN MEDICINE lions of unnecessary hysterectomies yet it is still the most frequent surgical procedure inflicted on females.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 128

She also found that patients play a part in unnecessary surgery. When they voiced objections to a hysterectomy for such conditions as painful fibroids, doctors tended to change their opinion that the operation was necessary.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 182

One of the most outspoken critics of unnecessary surgery is Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen. “If a doctor immediately says, ‘Have a hysterectomy/ shop for a new physician,” he suggests. “You need tests to write off all the alternatives.”
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 181

Unwarranted Surgery – Cesarean Section:

In 2001, Cesarean section is still the most common OB/GYN surgical procedure. Approximately 4 million births occur annually, with a 24% C-Section rate, i.e., 960,000 operations. In the Netherlands only 8% of babies are delivered by Cesarean section. Assuming human babies are similar in the U.S. and in the Netherlands, we are performing 640,000 unnecessary C-Sections in the U.S. with its three to four times higher mortality and 20 times greater morbidity than vaginal delivery.105
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 25

Research has indicated that cesarean sections, as well as being associated with greater risks to mother and infant, are often unnecessary.
Get Healthy Now by Gary Null, page 706

Unnecessary surgery referred to the modern rash of cesareans as a “surgical epidemic.” Calling on understatement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists admits that C-sections “are more common than they should be.” An actual estimate, made by the Centers for Disease Control, says that 349,000 of the cesarean surgeries were unnecessary. This is a serious situation. The operation is major surgery, and when inappropriate, carries two to four times greater risk to the mother than normal vaginal birth.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 184

This is a serious situation. The operation is major surgery, and when inappropriate, carries two to four times greater risk to the mother than normal vaginal birth. Public Citizen, which puts out a regular report on the rate of C-sections, believes the surgery is done almost twice as often as medically indicated, at a cost of an extra $1.3 billion and unnecessary pain and injury.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 184

Just as one surgical operation—like tonsillectomy—is shot down by intelligent criticism, another, like C-section, rises to take its place in the inventory of often unnecessary surgeries. It is now up to the profession—or if forced, the states—to stop the excess cutting stimulated by either greed, medical fashion, or ignorance. That is the only way to protect the unknowing patient public. Chapter VI
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 191

Women who have their babies without CNMs are also more likely to be denied room to walk around during labor to ease their discomfort, more likely to be denied the use of a bath or shower during their labor, and more likely to undergo unnecessary cesarean surgery.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 125

Multiple Types of Surgery Mentioned:

In 1985 the U.S. Senate’s Special Committee on Aging found that unnecessary operations (most for hernias, hemorrhoids, gallstones, enlarged prostates, heart disease and similar conditions), far from helping patients were actually shortening their lives and wasting money — billions of dollars. The committee found that operations increased 130 percent after Medicare went into effect. The American College of Surgeons and the American surgical Association suggested that 30 percent of the millions of operations being performed each year were unnecessary with 50 percent of the remaining procedures beneficial but not essential to save or extend the patient’s life. In all, it was thought that the needless and dubious operations were causing an unnecessary thirty thousand deaths per year. The unnecessary expenses and deaths become noticeable when doctors are in short supply or go on strike. In such cases the death rate in an area can drop remarkably — much to the embarrassment of the medical community (when the facts can’t be covered up).
Attaining Medical Self Sufficiency An Informed Citizens Guide by Duncan Long, page 9

1974: 2.4 million unnecessary surgeries performed annually resulting in 11,900 deaths at an annual cost of $3.9 billion. 2001: 7.5 million unnecessary surgical procedures resulting in 37,136 deaths at a cost of $122 billion (using 1974 dollars). It’s very difficult to obtain accurate statistics when studying unnecessary surgery. Dr. Leape in 1989 wrote that perhaps 30% of controversial surgeries are unnecessary. Controversial surgeries include Cesarean section, tonsillectomy, appendectomy, hysterectomy, gastrectomy for obesity, breast implants, and elective breast implants.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 19

Myriad of reasons—mix-up of X rays and patient charts, surgeons’ haste to “beat their time” doing a procedure, poorly trained surgeons, and unnecessary surgeries, especially hysterectomies (nearly half are unnecessary), coronary bypass operations (one out of every three may be unnecessary), and Cesarean sections. In addition, the area of the country in which you live plays an important part in the type of surgery you will undergo.
How to get out of the hospital alive by Sheldon P Blau MD FACP FACR, page 140

Hysterectomies. American Health also reported in April 1993 that the chance that a woman in Maine will undergo a hysterectomy varies from 20% to 70%, depending on where in the state she lives. Local preference, not science, explains the disparity. In general, the reason for most hysterectomies is to resolve symptoms related to benign uterine fibroids. New studies show that if they aren’t causing any serious and immediate symptoms, surgery is unnecessary. Cesarean sections. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that in 1991 some 349,900 unnecessary cesarean sections were performed, at a cost of more than $1 billion. The rate skyrocketed from 10.4% of births in 1975 to 24.5% in 1988. Again, the issue isn’t just money, although $ 1 billion would pay for a lot of health care for those who don’t have it. Surgery can lead to infections and longer hospital stays.
The Consumer Bible by Mark Green, page 70

On the other hand, studies show that particular areas of the country as well as specific hospitals within a community often are more likely to perform operations that may be unnecessary—such as tonsillectomies, hysterectomies, and cesareans—than others. If you’re assigned to a particular physician’s group or hospital where the standard of care mandates surgery rather than more conservative treatment, demand a second opinion.
How to get out of the hospital alive by Sheldon P Blau MD FACP FACR, page 194

Myringotomies are currently being performed on nearly 1,000,000 American children each year. It appears that the unnecessary surgery of the past, the tonsillectomy, has been replaced by this new procedure. In fact there is a direct correlation between the decline of the tonsillectomy and the rise of the myringotomy. Over 2 million myringotomy tubes are inserted into children’s ears each year, along with 600,000 tonsillectomies and adenoidectomies. These surgeries are unnecessary for most children.
Textbook of Natural Medicine Volumes 1-2 by Joseph E Pizzorno and Michael T Murray, page 1465

Unjustified Surgery due to Back Pain:

Unnecessary surgery waxes and wanes. First one operation, like tonsillectomy, is in fashion, then another, like C-sections. The most recent “in” technique is “back surgery.”
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 184

A forceful critic of much back surgery is Dr. Richard A. Deyo, professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine. He points out that most low back pain is caused by a simple muscle strain, which over time heals itself. It is not, he says, usually caused by herniated disks in the spine, which are the target of most surgeries. Dr. Deyo estimates that “diskectomy,” the name of such surgery, is performed on 300,000 people a year, and is often a wasteful, unnecessary activity. A diskectomy involves cutting through the bony parts of the vertebrae to remove the jellylike substance inside. The reason is that in herniated disks, the substance protrudes, putting pressure on the nerves.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 185

Dr. Deyo, writing in the journal Spine, says America is undergoing an unnecessary back surgery epidemic of such proportions that surgeons here perform diskectomies forty percent more often than other Western nations and five times more often than in England and Scotland. It also appears that the number of back surgeries relates directly to the number of appropriate surgeons available in the nation according to population. In the same publication, Dr. Deyo and others also studied hospitalization for back pain and found that from 1979 to 1990, nonsurgical hospitalizations decreased dramatically. Meanwhile, admissions for surgery increased.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 185

Orthopedic doctors, who specialize in injuries related to the muscles, joints, bones, tendons, and ligaments, are often inexperienced with conservative methods of treatment and are sometimes too willing to engage in unnecessary surgery. The problem is that surgery has limited long-range benefits and is completely unnecessary for many lower back pain sufferers. When confronted with pain caused by a factor that does not show up on an X ray, an orthopedist will generally refer the patient to another professional. If you are going to an orthopedic specialist for advice on back pain, it is recommended that you see one who does not reflexively advocate surgery or prolonged reliance on prescription drugs.
Complete Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Gary Null PhD, page 63

In 2001, the top 50 medical and surgical procedures totaled approximately 41.8 million. These figures were taken from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Using 17.6% from the 1974 U.S. Congressional House Subcommittee Oversight Investigation as the percentage of unnecessary surgical procedures, and extrapolating from the death rate in 1974, we come up with an unnecessary procedure number of 7.5 million (7,489,718) and a death rate of 37,136, at a cost of $122 billion (using 1974 dollars). Researchers performed a very similar analysis, using the 1974 ‘unnecessary surgery percentage’ of 17.6, on back surgery. In 1995, researchers testifying before the Department of Veterans Affairs estimated that of 250,000 back surgeries in the U.S. at a hospital cost of $11,000 per patient, the total number of unnecessary back surgeries each year in the U.S. could approach 44,000, costing as much as $484 million.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 19

They studied the surgical treatment for the common complaint of “low back pain,” and concluded that most of the operations were unnecessary. In fact, says the agency, the less treatment for these pains, surgical or medical, the better. A report in the New England Journal of Medicine, for instance, decried the use of corticosteroids as risky and of little value. The evidence, says the federal agency, shows that regular activity rather than bed rest reduces the chances of developing a chronic condition that leads to surgery.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 186

The findings of the MRIs are often misleading and lead to “unnecessary surgery and the results are not very good,” Froymeyer said. Another expert, Robert Boyd, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said, “surgery doesn’t put new backs in and it doesn’t give better long-term results. It is indicated when pain doesn’t respond to conservative treatment and is clearly associated with nerve root compression. Then the results of surgery are excellent.” But only a small percentage of people with back pain fall into this category, according to Boyd.
The Miracle Of MSM by Stanley W Jacob, page 102

Unwarranted Surgery due to Results of Mammography:

Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—Mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. High Rate of False Positives—Mammography’s high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer. According to some estimates, 90% of these “callbacks” result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue. High Rate of False Negatives—Mammography also produces a high rate of false-negative test results. While false
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

Breast Cancer type of abnormality found and the age of the woman. Usually the follow-up tests begin with the least invasive methods, such as an ultrasound or second mammogram, and progress, if necessary, to the more invasive methods, such as a needle or surgical biopsy. A biopsy should spare the tissue, removing just enough tissue to make a diagnosis without being unnecessarily invasive. A woman should not rush from one abnormal screening mammogram or clinical breast exam to a major, invasive surgical procedure or to treatment for breast cancer. Following the series of tests outlined below can ensure that the diagnosis is correct and assist in avoiding unnecessary procedures.
Disease Prevention And Treatment by Life Extension Foundation, page 30

Early detection is currently one of the primary strategies for prevention and successful treatment, which is why the breast self-exam is so important. The benefits of mammography are still a subject of debate. Questions that are still present include whether low-level radiation used in the test can contribute to cancer, whether equivocal results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of test results.
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467

Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of “missed tumors,” resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

Corruption and Unjustified Surgery ($):

Doctors and hospitals are paid more for doing more, largely without regard for evidence of improved health outcomes (examples are the rapid increase in the number of MRI machines, excess capacity for neonatology and invasive cardiac procedures that lead to excess use, and the approximately 12,000 deaths that occur each year as the result of unnecessary surgery). Health care providers that deliver high quality, efficient care are financially penalized for not delivering a higher volume of more intensive services, beneficial or not (referred to as the “perverse incentive”).
Overdosed America by John Abramson MD, page 256

We could do much more to lower costs, such as practicing scientifically based medicine, but it’s like combating an epidemic. There is such a strong incentive, as with the pharmaceutical industry and surgical subspecialists, to keep prices—and profits or incomes—high. It will likely require a major change in how we organize health care in America to effect any meaningful change. If we were really to practice scientifically based medicine, the cost savings would be great. We order and do so many unnecessary tests and procedures, and our prescribing patterns are illogical and expensive.
Health Care Meltdown by Robert H Lebow MD, page 57

Most health problems are not emergencies. To treat them as though they were chronic, recurrent emergencies, which is the way medicine is often practiced today, is costly, time consuming and generally ineffective. It causes many problems, often more than it relieves, and these are sometimes deadly. Side effects of medications kill more people annually than automobile accidents. Unnecessary surgery (heart disease and other conditions) has significant mortality while it also drives up health care costs. This approach to health care also takes the power and responsibility for your health out of your control.
The Vitamin Revolution by Michael Janson, page 200

Clinical care, which was improving, is now being subject to new rules, systems, and regulations from the outside, which punish both good medicine and good doctors. Surgery is still too often unnecessary. Medical fraud, always a small problem, has become near epidemic. American hospitals are adrift, struggling against empty beds, fierce competition, and massive confusion.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 254

Surgery is similarly a vastly lucrative practice, acting as the third financial mooring in the tripod of cancer treatments. The more radical the operation, the more costly. Since surgeons are rewarded monetarily for the magnitude of their handiwork, excess becomes a perverse incentive for financial success. The amount of unnecessary surgery is high. As early as 1953, Dr. Paul Hawley, director of the American College of Surgeons, stated matter-of-factly in an interview in U.S. News and World Report, “You’d be shocked, I think—we are—at the amount of unnecessary surgery that is performed.” The reason, according to Hawley? “Money.”
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 268

This truth has been deliberately concealed from the general public. According to Dr. Gould, the reason for this conspiracy of silence is money. The public must continue to see the cancer establishment as a winner to continue providing money. One of the quoted scientists said that, with tens of thousands of radiologists and millions of dollars in equipment, one still gives radiation treatment even if study after study shows that it does more harm than good. Dr. Gould says patients who could be comfortable without medical treatment until their inevitable death are made miserable with medical treatment in a pointless attempt to postpone death for a few unhappy weeks. Of course, that is when most of the money is being made. Dr. Gould says doctors poison their patients with drugs and rays and mutilate them with unnecessary surgery in a desperate attempt to treat the untreatable.
The Natural Way to Heal by Walter Last, page 320

Unnecessary surgery: With appendicitis produced only two “false positives,” patients who did not have the disease. This is in contrast to the twenty percent proven to have healthy appendixes after surgery. The technique, called “Focused Appendix CT” or FACT, could eliminate this type of unnecessary surgery—at least in the hands of honest surgeons. Unlike other doctors, surgeons are not content to live on forty dollars per patient visit. Many still see the operating table as a chance for the brass ring—the new SL600 Mercedes coupe for $139,000, or even the down payment on a piece of land in Southampton or Malibu.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 180

Miscellaneous (tonsils/adenoids, prostatectomy, cancer, carotid endarterectomy, mastectomy etc):

Rufer and her husband sued Abbott Laboratories, UWMC, and the cancer specialist who treated her. UWMC and the doctor argued that they had relied on the Abbott test results. Abbott denied all responsibility, even though the literature distributed with its tests made no mention of the potential for false positives. What’s more, according to a court opinion, it turned out that “Abbott also had access to reports that false positive results on its assay led to unnecessary cancer treatment before 1998. It received over forty complaints of false positives, including multiple complaints of unnecessary chemotherapy and surgery before Jennifer Rufer’s first treatment in April 1998.
Critical condition by Donald L Barlett and James B Steele, page 63

Although it embraces new technology, the medical profession has a tendency to reject new ideas. Surgeons are willing to learn new ways of performing operations, although few seem eager to examine possible alternatives to surgery. Much of this can of course be explained by the fact that research into surgery is normally performed by surgeons. Their training and experience does not lend itself to looking into other options. Cardiac surgeons, for instance, would be unlikely to work at a project that would prove that most heart operations are unnecessary or dangerous. That conclusion would not only put their livelihood at risk, but also invalidate their entire vocation. The only people in the operating room who have a clear reason for wanting the truth are the patients on the tables. But if we wait until that moment to learn the truth, it might be too late.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 131

Anesthesiologists benefit from bypass surgery. In medical slang anesthesiologists are called gas passers. Anesthesiologists use measured amounts of poisons to put surgical patients to sleep and, hopefully, wake them up. They bill patients by the hour. Each cabbage case may take about two to three hours of their time. They have nothing to do with the decision to do surgery, but you don’t hear any of them making waves by complaining about unnecessary surgery. To do so would jeopardize their standing in the anesthesia department and their livelihoods.
Heart Frauds by Charles T McGee MD, page 53

About 300,000 men per year have surgery to correct enlarged prostates, but many of those surgeries may be unnecessary. There are many natural remedies that you can find in health food stores that will shrink your prostate, if BPH is the cause. (Note: Only a doctor can tell the difference between BPH and prostate cancer, so get a firm diagnosis before you go ahead with natural remedies).
Proven Health Tips Encyclopedia By American Medical Publishing, page 136

But religious considerations aside, circumcision has caught on among non-Jews in the United States. The operation has been the center of a medical debate: Does it provide health benefits, or is it unnecessary surgery?
Healthcare Online for Dummies by Howard and Judi Wolinsky, page 200

Surgery has come under increasing criticism in recent years for a number of other reasons. Some doctors and patients hold that much cancer surgery is either unnecessary or excessive in its scope. The fiercest argument has taken place over the question of breast cancer, but the issues raised in this debate appear applicable to other forms of cancer as well.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 49

Surgery is unnecessary when the risk is greater than the benefit, or when there is no strong evidence that the surgery will benefit most of the people operated on.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 186

Going under the knife. One explanation for high U.S. medical costs is that so much surgery is unnecessary. Ask for a plain-English explanation of the need for and alternatives to any surgery.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 114

The innocuous behavior of recurring tumors is a mystery. Some surgeons think that leaving a few cancerous cells to roam about after surgery is a deadly mistake. Others believe that these cells simply turn into tumors that can be removed without threatening the life of the patient. Still, many leaders in the field of oncological surgery, either out of fear or arrogance, continue to demand that more studies be conducted before modifying the traditional treatments. How many patients will become the innocent victims of this irrational posturing? The same tendencies have also been observed in other types of tumors. For example, sarcomas are tumors that generally form from muscle or fat in the extremities. Treatment of them always consists of an extensive amputation followed by radiation therapy, with the object of reducing the incidence of recurrence. After reviewing the experiences of numerous hospitals, one concludes that “a reduction of local recurrence does not mean a betterment of average life expectancy in the long run.” In other words, the frightening mutilations are entirely unnecessary. The same conclusions can be applied to melanoma a very aggressive skin cancer, which is generally treated with excessively radical surgery.
Health In The 21st Century by Fransisco Contreras MD, page 196

The indiscriminate, and often unnecessary, surgical removal of these glands does not solve the underlying immunological problem that caused them to be swollen and diseased in the first place. Often, after a short period of improvement, it leads to chronic allergy problems. If the microorganisms get past the tonsils and adenoids, ciliated microfilaments lining the upper passages of the lungs remove them in secreted phlegm; they do this in a wavelike fashion, much like firemen of an earlier time on a bucket brigade.
Viral Immunity by J.E, page 90

The common carotid endarterectomy surgery is designed to prevent a full-fledged stroke. But is it often overused and unnecessary, especially when there is insufficient diagnosis.
The Medical Racket by Martin L Gross, page 187

In fact, because of the high potential for false positive readings—where people are told they have cancer when they don’t—screening may only be increasing the number of patients mutilated through unnecessary drug treatment or surgery.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 12

Doctors differ considerably in their approval of this “nontreatment.” Naturally the more surgery-prone physicians lean in the direction of early removal of the prostate, while the more conservative ones tell us that for any man whose life expectancy is less than 10 years, the surgery may offer only unnecessary discomfort and incapacity.
The Prostate Cure by Harry G Preuss MD and Brenda D Adderly MHA, page 184

Alvsborg County Council felt the costs of a mass-screening program far outweighed any benefits, and that the money saved could be better spent helping those diagnosed with cancer. The council voted for the ban, following advice from the county’s chief physician, Dr. Christer Enkvist, who felt that the advantages of screening are “extremely marginal” and can lead to unnecessary surgery.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 60

Read Full Post »

New science shows ultrasounds work better than mammograms at detecting breast cancer

 

by Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The annual ritual of radioactive breast poisoning known as mammography has taken a huge hit in the scientific community, as a new study out of Seattle, Washington, recently found that simple ultrasounds, which emit harmless sound waves rather than ionizing radiation, work far better than mammograms at detecting malignant breast tumors.

An analysis conducted by the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA) reveals that, overall, ultrasounds have a 95.7 percent sensitivity rate in detecting malignant tumor cells while mammograms are only 60.9 percent sensitive, by comparison. Among 1,208 cases evaluated, ultrasounds also successfully detected about 57 percent more harmful breast cancers compared to mammograms.

Dr. Constance Lehman, M.D., Ph.D., Director of Radiology at SCCA and her colleagues observed that, particularly among women aged 30 to 39, ultrasounds are a safer and more effective alternative to mammograms as a breast cancer screening tool. Based on her and her team’s findings, it now appears prudent to switch gears and perhaps ditch mammography altogether.

“In women under 40, ultrasound is better at evaluating breast lumps compared to mammography,” said Lehman about the findings, which were published recently in the American Journal of Roentgenology. Though Lehman still recommends mammograms for women over age 40, her study’s findings illustrate that they are an unnecessary risk.

Earlier study finds ultrasounds far more effective than mammograms

A New Zealand study published in the American Journal of Surgery back in 2004 clearly illustrates this point, having found that ultrasound is “significantly better than mammography for detecting invasive breast cancer,” having demonstrated a 92 percent success rate. Combining both mammography and ultrasound, on the other hand, only increased breast cancer detection by nine percent, which may represent statistical insignificance.

Ultrasounds also work better than mammograms at detecting cancer tumors in denser breast tissue. A Connecticut women, for example, was diagnosed earlier this year with stage 3C breast cancer after getting an ultrasound following a mammogram. The mammogram falsely indicated no tumors, while the ultrasound told the real story.

Mammograms cause cancer; ultrasounds do not

Steering clear of mammography becomes a whole lot easier, even in spite of intense social pressure, once women realize that the technology actually causes breast cancer. Besides its questionable efficacy, mammography has been shown in numerous studies to significantly increase women’s risk of developing breast tumors.

There is a reason why health bureaucracies and the medical community at large have had such difficulty establishing guidelines for when and how often women of various ages should get mammograms – the risks of getting mammograms are so verifiably high that they appear to cause far more harm than good.

“The complete and utter hoax of mammography has now been wholly discredited through a flurry of groundbreaking studies performed by conventional medicine researchers,” wrote Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, in a commentary several years ago, when the truth about mammograms was finally starting to gain momentum.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.seattlecca.org

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15474430

http://articles.courant.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/027641_mammograms_breast_cancer.html

 

Read Full Post »

Chemotherapy drugs are linked to severe vitamin D deficiency

 

by Ethan Evers

(NaturalNews) Vitamin D is critically important for cancer patients in surviving their disease longer. Now, researchers have discovered that several chemotherapy drugs used to treat cancer may also cause severe vitamin D deficiency in patients. More disturbing is that attempts to give such patients supplemental vitamin D have met with mixed results, unless very high doses are applied. If these surprise findings are more widely applicable, they could provide new explanations for the extremely negative side effects of chemotherapy drugs.

Chemotherapy lowers vitamin D in colon cancer patients

It is well established that cancer patients have lower levels of vitamin D than the general public, but the relationship between vitamin D status and severity (stage) of cancer among patients remains unclear. It was exactly this link that oncologists at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute were researching when they unexpectedly discovered that the strongest risk factor for severe vitamin D deficiency was the use of chemotherapy drugs. Patients taking chemo (any of the three regimens being used) were 400 percent more likely to show severely depressed levels of the vitamin (less than 15 ng/ml) compared to those not on chemo (multivariate analysis of 315 patients). This is problematic, as one recent study showed that colon cancer patients with the lowest levels of vitamin D had a significantly greater risk of death compared to those with higher levels (hazard ratio equals 1.92, lowest to highest quartile).

Vitamin D lowering effect also confirmed in breast cancer patients

Not long after the results from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute were published, French researchers announced similar findings, but this time for breast cancer patients. Before treatment, 79.5 percent of their patients were insufficient for vitamin D (levels below 30 ng/ml), but 97.4 percent were insufficient after treatment (with neoadjuvant chemotherapy). Chemotherapy had caused the patients’ median vitamin D level to drop from 21.3 ng/ml to 14.7 ng/ml. As with colon cancer, lower vitamin D levels among breast cancer patients are correlated with reduced survival.

How can vitamin D levels be maintained during chemotherapy?

Research on maintaining vitamin D levels during chemotherapy treatment is still in early stages. Doctors at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute tested 2000 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D given to their colon cancer patients in a randomized trial. The average level of vitamin D for all patients at the start of the trial was 17.5 ng/ml. After six months of supplementation, this rose to a healthy 37.5 ng/ml for non-chemotherapy patients, but to only 29 ng/ml for patients on chemo, which is still insufficient. A similar trial was run with breast cancer patients, using low dose (1000 IU/day) or high dose (50,000 IU once per week). Patients started the trial with an average of 27.5 ng/ml. On the low dose, patients’ levels increased by only 9.4 ng/ml. However, the high dose increased patients’ vitamin D by 24.3 ng/ml, which brought their levels into a healthy range. These trials confirmed that chemotherapy may reduce a patient’s ability to utilize supplemental vitamin D, requiring them to take much higher doses than normal to achieve sufficiency.

The mechanisms by which chemotherapy drugs lower vitamin D in cancer patients remain unclear, but could include decreased absorption via subclinical mucositis or increased metabolism of vitamin D via the activation of enzymes such as CYP3A4. Until further research is completed, there is a risk that most (if not all) chemotherapy drugs may depress patients’ vitamin D levels. Cancer patients taking these drugs should therefore consider monitoring their vitamin D status throughout the treatment period as well as aggressive supplementation to maintain adequate levels which are associated with a better prognosis.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22928063
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18830610
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22562178
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22493367
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21384167

About the author:
Ethan Evers is author of the award-winning medical thriller “The Eden Prescription,” in which cutting-edge researchers perfect an effective, all-natural treatment for cancer, only to be hunted down by pharmaceutical interests which will stop at nothing to protect their $80 billion cancer drug cash machine. The Eden Prescription is based on the latest science and draws on real historical events stretching back to the beginning of the “War on Cancer.” Ethan has a PhD in Applied Science.

The Eden Prescription is available on amazon: www.amazon.com/Eden-Prescription-cancer-what-think/dp/1439276552/
Follow Ethan on Facebook for the latest breakthroughs and news on natural medicine for cancer: www.facebook.com/pages/The-Eden-Prescription/130965870291786
Follow Ethan on Twitter: https://twitter.com/EdenRx

 

Read Full Post »

THE DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCES OF DISRUPTING THE MENSTRUAL CYCLE

Email: muftis@themajlis.net

7 Zil Hajj 1433 – 23 October 2012

The monthly menstrual cycle is a creation of Allah Azza Wa Jal designed to expel injurious and harmful filth, impurities and poisons from the female human body. Any interference to disrupt this natural cycle is fraught with serious health consequences. Many of the sicknesses from which women suffer could be attributed to their satanic interference in the natural creation of Allah Ta’ala. Such shaitaani interference is termed in the Qur’aan Majeed, Taghyeer khalqillaah (changing the natural creation of Allah). The Qur’aan attributes this evil practice to shaitaan.
The following is a report on the dangerous consequences of disrupting the natural menstrual cycle with haraam, poisonous pills and medication.
PAINFUL DEATH CAN BE THE CONSEQUENCE
“Recently this past week, Nicole Dishuk (age 31 …newly graduated student with a doctoral degree about to start her new career as a Doctor…) was flown into a nearby hospital, because she passed out.
They found a blood clot in her neck, and immediately took her by helicopter to the ER to operate. By the time they removed the right half of her skull to relieve the pressure on her brain; the clot has spread to her brain causing severe damage.
Since last Wednesday night, she was battling. They induced her into a coma to stop the blood flow, they operated 3 times… Finally, they said there was nothing left that they could do… They found multiple clots in the left side of her brain… The swelling wouldn’t stop, and she was on life support.
She died at 4:30 yesterday. She leaves behind a husband and a 2yr old Brandon and a 4yr old Justin… The CAUSE of DEATH – they found was a birth control she was taking that allows you to only have your period 3 times a year…
They said it interrupts life’s menstrual cycle, and although it is FDA approved…shouldn’t be – So to the women – I ask you to boycott this product and deal with your period once a month – so you can live the rest of the months that your life has in store for you.
Please send this to every woman you know – you may save someone’s life…Remember, you have a CYCLE for a reason!
For Your Information: The name of this new birth control pill is Lybrel. If you go to http://www.lybrel.com, you will find at least 26 pages of information regarding this drug.
The second birth control pill is, Seasonique. If you go to the website of http://www.seasonique.com, you will find 43 pages of information regarding this drug.
The warnings and side effects regarding both pills are horrible.”

Read Full Post »