wd_title.gif (9711 bytes)

Radiation

As long as we’ve covered Marie Curie and her discovery of radium and a cancer cure (that not only did not work but helped to send the patient to an even earlier grave than expected) we thought it was time to look at the medical use of radiation.

According to Irwin Bross in his book Fifty Years of Folly and Fraud "In The Name of Science," the one of the biggest myth today is that low level radiation is harmless, adding that myths are invulnerable to truth.

We know how deadly radiation can be from medical experiments conducted over the years on human beings, yet radiation is still used and is considered a wonderful treatment for cancer even though no study has proven it to be safe and even remotely successful.

So far, all experts outside the small loop of radiologists and oncologists who earn their living treating cancer patients, most agree that radiation does not improve a patient’s overall survival rate when it comes to breast cancer. According to the Annals of Internal Medicine, radiation increases a woman’s long-term risk for esophageal cancer.

In his book World Without Cancer, by Edward G Grifin notes that radiation does shrink tumors. However, the average Joe does not know that this is meaningless. A cancer patient visits his oncologist, the oncologist tells her/him that her/his tumor is shrinking and the patient is overjoyed. But tumor shrinkage means, in the long run, absolutely, incontrovertibly, naught. Peanut butter might some day show that it can shrink a tumor, and here is why we think this:

We have to realize that inside of a tumor are normal cells and malignant cells. The outer coating of a tumor was placed there by the immune system to protect the rest of the body from the tumor. Wipe out that protective layer, and malignancies spread.

Grifin points out that non-cancer cells die quicker than cancer cells using radiation. Here is where peanut butter comes in: non-cancer cells die quite easily, destroying the outer coating, resulting in a spread of the inner core, the malignancy. So even if peanut butter is found to shrink tumors, is this such a wonderful thing?

Bross too discovered how radiation shrunk tumors, allowing the spread of the malignancy. He worked as a biostatistician for the National Cancer Institute. He found that when you attack a cancer with radiation therapy, statistically, it has a better chance of spreading than if radiation had not been used. He even discovered, through his statistics, that most tumors, even though under a microscope might look malignant, they would not become malignant until attacked by radiation or chemotherapy.

Grifin, in his book World Without Cancer, quotes Dr John Richardson:

Radiation and/or radiomimetic poisons will reduce palpable, gross or measurable tumefaction. Often this reduction may amount to seventy-five percent or more of the mass of the growth. These agents have a selective effect—radiation and poisons. They selectively kill everything except the definitively neoplastic [cancer] cells.

For example, a benign uterine myoma will usually melt away under radiation like snow in the sun. If there be neoplastic cells in such tumor, these will remain. The size of the tumor may thus be decreased by ninety percent while the relative concentration of definitively neoplastic cells is thereby increased by ninety percent.

Low level radiation was once used as a cancer treatment. We’ve all had x-rays. If you had cancer or suspected cancer, x-rays were the thing in the twenties and thirties. In the forties and fifties, those patients who’d had x-ray therapy (along with the many who’d simply undergone extensive x-rays because they were told how safe they were) were diagnosed with cancers.

Among the most serious of the late consequences of irradiation damage is the increased susceptibility to malignant metaplasia and the development of cancer at sites of earlier irradiation. Evidence cited in support of this relationship refers to the increased incidence of carcinoma of skin, bone, and lung after latent periods of 20 years and longer following irradiation of those sites. Further support has been adduced from the relatively high incidence of carcinoma of the thyroid 7 years and longer following low-dosage irradiation of the thymus in childhood, and from the increased incidence of leukemia following total body irradiation at any age. [Brunner, Emerson, Ferguson, and Doris Suddarth, Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1970) 2nd Edition]

Irwin Bross lost his job at the NCI when he began publishing his findings. He saw it coming when a new head of the NCI was installed, a radiologist. But there are many who back Bross and his findings, and some of them are radiologists. One, a Dr Powers, attending a cancer conference, stated:

Although preoperative and postoperative radiation therapy have been used extensively and for decades, it is still not possible to prove unequivocal clinical benefit from this combined treatment.... Even if the rate of cure does improve with a combination of radiation and therapy, it is necessary to establish the cost in increased morbidity which may occur in patients without favorable response to the additional therapy. ["Preoperative and Postoperative Radiation Therapy for Cancer," speech delivered to the Sixth National Cancer Conference, sponsored by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, Denver, Colorado, Sept. 18—20, 1968]

Radiation kills. We’ve known this for years. People with breast cancer suffer a very high incidence of heart attacks when undergoing radiation therapy. Radiation weakens an already compromised immune system and secondary infections are a frequent cause of death in cancer patients. When you look at the statistics, the statistics alone, there is no benefit whatsoever to radiation therapy.

We discovered a reference from a Dr Philip Ruben who, after reviewing statistics published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, stated, "The clinical evidence and statistical data in numerous reviews are cited to illustrate that no increase in survival has been achieved by the addition of irradiation."

If you are wondering where organizations like the American Cancer Society are getting their figures, the ones that allow them to make claims that that cancer patients are now surviving longer, thanks to orthodox therapy, perhaps you should know this:

  1. We are not living longer with cancer, we are being diagnosed earlier.
  2. If a person in a cancer study dies during that study, that death is not counted because he was not in the study long enough. If you are in the control group and you die during the period of the study, your death is counted.
  3. Skin cancers, many which go away on their own, were suddenly brought into the equation to prove that modern medicine is winning the war on cancer.

For more on how you can manipulate cancer statistics to give a positive report, read Robert N. Proctor, Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know About Cancer (New York: Basic Books, 1995) 

As a child, I remember well the ACS campaign on television. We were to fight cancer with a "Check-up and a Check." The message was if you find it early, your chances of surviving are greater. The other message is, give us money and we’ll find a cure.

Well, we’ve given them billions and so far, no cure. If NASA were given as much money, we’d have condominiums on the moon.

Radiation therapy makes things worse. Early detection can mean early death. I was sent a copy of a letter sent from one physician (Dr Dean Burk) to the head of the NCI (Dr. Frank Rauscher)

In spite of the foregoing evidence…officials of the American Cancer Society and even of the National Cancer Institute, have continued to set forth to the public that one in every four cancer cases is now "cured" or "controlled," but seldom if ever backed up with the requisite statistical or epidemiological support for such a statement to be scientifically meaningful, however effective for fund gathering. Such a statement is highly misleading, since it hides the fact that, with systemic or metastatic cancers, the actual rate of control in terms of the conventional five-year survival is scarcely more than one in twenty

We’ve already focused on Mammograms at this web site. You can read about our earlier research here: Mammography. However, we keep running into the same information over and over again: Mammograms cause cancer. Statistically, since the advent of Mammography, more women have died of breast cancer than previous to that. Dr John Gofman, a leading nuclear medical scientist, claims that 75% of breast cancers are the result of x-rays and mammograms. [http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/mammography.html]

Rick Ensminger, one of our volunteer researchers, has sent us a recent review of mammography that says the only way to show an increase in survival time due to mammography is to redefine the word survivor:

Breast cancer mortality has remained unchanged for decades despite huge screening programmes." Fiona Bawdon. WDDTY Report on Breast Cancer—The Mammogram myth. Vol 3, No. 10.

Lancet published, in October of 2001, a Danish study of a previous study (they wanted to get this right) which confirmed the original conclusion: "There is no evidence that breast-cancer screening with mammography saves women's lives."

Rick tells us that when the original study was published in Lancet, the medical community came down hard on it questioning the reasoning and conclusions. So the researchers went back and looked at the original statistics, and then they looked at previous studies. Eight studies in all were reviewed, and only two were actually found to be valid. Both of those concluded that mammograms have not reduced breast cancer deaths.

Here are some links to Susan Weed’s Work : www.wwseniors.com/cgi-bin/artauth.pl?authid=WeedS & http://www.healingwell.com/library/breastcancer

Rick sent us some links to work conducted by Susan Weed, a columnist who has been battling the Mammography industry for years. Here are some excerpts from her work:

But screening mammograms don't prevent breast cancer. A mammogram is an x-ray and x-rays cause cancer. The ads promoting regular screening mammography are paid for by those who stand to profit from their widespread acceptance and use-the manufacturers of the equipment and x-ray film. Whose health does this technology really benefit? Women's health? Or corporate health?

Neither diagnostic nor screening mammograms detect cancer. Mammograms can reveal areas of dense tissue in the breasts. These areas may be cancer, or may be associated with cancer, or may be normal tissue, but a mammogram can't tell. The only medically accepted way to tell is to do a biopsy. Over 80 percent of the biopsies done to follow up on a suspicious screening mammogram find no cancer.

Roughly 8 out of 10 "positive" mammographic reports are "false positive," that is, a subsequent biopsy does not confirm the presence of cancer. And as many as half (10-15 percent at an excellent facility) of all "negative" mammographic reports are "false negative."

According to current data, if all American women 40-50 years old were screened yearly by mammogram, 40 out of every 100 breast cancers would be missed. If all women over 50 were screened, 13 out of every 100 breast cancers would be missed. Half of all breast cancers in women under 45 are invisible on a mammogram.5 Screening mammograms often miss the deadliest breast cancers: fast-growing tumors in premenopausal women.

Women find their own breast cancers most of the time. (Ninety percent of the time according to one English study.)

Monthly breast self-exam (or breast self-massage) provides early detection at lower cost, with no danger- and more pleasure-than yearly screening mammograms.

Most breast cancers (80 percent) are slow growing, taking between 42 and 300 days to double in size. A yearly mammogram could find these cancers 8-16 months before they could be felt, but this "early detection" does little to improve the already excellent longevity of women with slow-growing, non-metastasized breast cancers.

The 20 percent of breast cancers that are fast growing are the trouble-makers. They can double in size in 21 days. Monthly breast self-exams are much more likely to find these aggressive cancers than are yearly mammograms. (A 21-day doubling cancer will be visible on a mammogram only 6 weeks before it can be felt.) If you massage or examine your breasts even six times a year, you can take action on fast-growing lumps. If you rely on mammograms exclusively, the cancer could grow undetected for months.

Irwin Bross’s book, Fifty Years of Folly and Fraud "In The Name of Science," has a lot to say about radiation and mammography. Everyone of you should read it. The part that stood out for me is this:

Radiation therapy does not improve the survival of patients with breast cancer. Did you know that the mortality rate for breast cancer in women over 55 was about 20% higher in 1995 than in 1970 (so much for mammograms)?

Bross goes on to say that the mammography stunt would cause four or five cancers for every one detected, leading to "the worst epidemic of iatrogenic (caused by physician intervention) breast cancer in history. In my view...the NCI would be better off putting the money allocated for future screenings into a trust fund for the victims of the programme who will develop cancer in 10 to 15 years time."

Bross has discovered, through his statistical analysis, that there are three types of cancer: benign, malignant, and one that looks malignant but is not and becomes malignant only when attacked with radiation and drugs:

If you are a woman who has been diagnosed as "early breast cancer"...there is one simple scientific fact that you need to know...more than half the time the pathologist is wrong — it is not actually breast cancer…. What most women have is a tumour which, under a light microscope, looks like a cancer to a pathologist. Chances are this tumour lacks the ability to metastasize…the hallmark of a genuine cancer ….

And finally, we have this from Rick:

Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, was wondering the same thing in the early 1990s. His research led him to write a 400-page book in which he estimates that "three-quarters of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the United States is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources." Astonishingly, this isn't even news. "[M]edical science," Gofman continues, "has known for 20 years that ionizing radiation is a prominent and proven cause of breast-cancer" [John Gofman, Preventing Breast Cancer, San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, 1995, p. 303] [http://www.gentlebirth.org/nwnm.org/Article_for_The_Union.htm]

As Deep Throat said in the movie/book All The President’s Men, "Follow the money." 

Medical fraud is rampant and people are profiting from it. Radiation Kills should be posted everywhere; on T-Shirts, Bumper Stickers, pens and pencils. But in this Orwellian world where war is peace, radiation heals.

And what of physicians who refuse to use radiation? Here’s a little story Rick sent us:

Dr. Glenn Warner is a board certified oncologist and one of the most highly qualified cancer specialist in the Seattle area. He uses alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great success. He has over 1000 surviving cancer patients. On the treatment of cancer in this country he said:

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."

The Washington State Medical Board came after him and revoked his license without any proof of incompetence, misconduct or malpractice and without a single complaint from any of his patients. In fact, his patients raised over $300,000 for his legal battle to get his license back.

What does that tell you about the priorities of our medical system and authorities?

Thanx, Rick!

References and Further Reading


Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of This Disease

Breast Cancer Breast Health by Susan Weed

Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know About Cancer by Robert N. Proctor (New York: Basic Books, 1995) 

World Without Cancer, by Edward G Grifin

Fifty Years of Folly and Fraud "In The Name of Science," by Irwin Bross

The Politics of Cancer Revisited, Samuel S Epstein, MD (it is hard to find copies)

 Articles TOC

International Wellness Directory Home Page

Copyright © 2005
International Wellness Directory
Contact us

For non commercial use: You may copy, print, reprint, and/or transfer this entire article, if and only if it is unmodified and in its complete state with this copyright notice attached and all the links work properly. All others must contact us in writing: Contact Us