Skip to main content

In 2020, there were more than 2.26 million new cases of breast cancer diagnosed worldwide. Two years later, breast cancer, at 2.31 million new cases, became the second most common cancer type, after lung cancer.

Why is it that when you type “mammograms” into a search engine, you’re presented with a range of articles praising their value? 

In the words of What Doctors Don’t Tell You “Medicine is more akin to the Roman Catholic Inquisitions of the 16th and 17th centuries than a science.  Its enforcers hunt in packs, discrediting and even destroying any who waver from its narrow dogmatic paths.

If it does change, it does so very sedately. Take, for instance, the use of mammograms as a national screening method to detect breast cancer.  Radiologists know it’s inadequate technology that picks up only a third of cancers and misses around 2500 cancers in the UK every year in women with dense breast tissue.

There are better options.  One, low-dose positron emission mammography (PEM), is more sensitive, especially in women with dense breast tissue, as one study published recently has demonstrated.  It detected 24 cancers in 25 women who had already been diagnosed with the condition.  That’s a 96 percent success rate, while standard mammogram screening detected just 62 percent of cases.

There’s another screening technology that has been abandoned by medicine, even though it is not invasive, and it picks up all cancerous activity.  

Thermography detects heat and not mass, as mammograms do, and, in the 1980s radiologists often used it in conjunction with a mammogram.  It was the perfect early-warning system that could predict a cancer that was not visible to mammography.  And that was the problem.  It was too sensitive, and while it would save many thousand of lives, medicine wasn’t—and isn’t –in the business of prevention, but only in treatment.”

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Screenshot-2024-04-23-at-09.49.03.png

I raise this subject to highlight the risks of mammograms outweighing the benefits. This practice was declared to be ineffective, painful, expensive and can cause considerable harm through high levels of radiation….yet it continues to be promoted.

That infamous phrase “Safe and effective” springs to mind.

Women should be given warnings, but hey, medicine has become increasingly about money, not your health.

One study found that the use of mammograms as a ‘life-saving’ tool has been significantly overstated and they could in fact be causing more damage than good.

From The Los Angeles Times: “More than half of breast cancers newly diagnosed in the United States are likely cases of mistaken identity that subject women to needless anxiety, treatment and expense, researchers reported Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine”.  

By ‘mistaken identity’, I’d suggest the LA Times really meant incorrect diagnosis.

Hippocrates Health writes:  “Mammograms use radiation equivalent to at least 100 chest x-rays, accumulating over a woman’s lifetime, and directly causing DNA damage that can lead to cancer. Studies show screening mammograms have not reduced breast cancer mortality overall, and may increase deaths in some groups. Yet they remain the standard of care, with doctors and industry interests reluctant to change protocols. Up to 30% of early detected cancers would never have progressed or impacted health, leading to traumatic and risky overtreatment.”

Switzerland terminated mammogram screenings in 2017 as they were deemed neither effective nor safe. The European Breast Guidelines followed suit by recommending against annual mammography screening for women ages 40 to 44 years but is suggested every two to three years for women ages 45 to 74 years.

What difference does age make to a test that is both ineffective and potentially hazardous?

By comparison breast thermography is a safer, painless and a more sensitive alternative for women given that it uses infrared rays and can detect changes 6-10 years before a tumour is big enough to appear on a mammogram.

LifeAdvancer: Why Women in China Rarely Get Breast Cancer

Whatever they’re trying to sell you, breast milk for infants is unquestionably the best! The natural properties within breast milk is lethal to parasites and cancer cells.

Breast cancer can now be detected using biomarkers in tears. Let’s hope this initiative sees the light of day.

A report from the Singapore Government showed that 85 % of Singaporeans had gum disease because the incidence of breast feeding is low.  Breast feeding is of course where the orbicular muscles around the mouth develop; this is not the case with bottle feeding as considerably less sucking is required with the latter. 

When bottle-fed children become adults, their underdeveloped orbicular muscles cause them to sleep with an open mouth.

Thermo diagnostics equipment now exists to diagnose potential imbalances and threats to the body, screening for pre-cancer conditions and, for those with cancer, pinpoint some of the root causes. 

Needless to say the procedure is relatively new and health authorities insist it cannot be used as a sole diagnostic screening procedure, despite the failings of mammograms.

I have written about this subject – and many other health issues – more extensively in my ebook: The Body Speaks

Phylipa Dinnen

Leave a Reply