Breast Cancer—Are We Being Given Bad Advice?

Introduction

When it comes to breast cancer, the worst thing we can do is put 100% blind faith in the medical establishment.  To be blunt, there is simply too much money and too many jobs hanging on the highly profitable BUSINESS of diagnosing and treating breast cancer.  

The profits (and job security) are so high, in fact, as to explain why it seems as if there is more an impetus to treat breast cancer than there is to prevent it. 

At the very least, we should always make sure to get as much information as possible—not just the very limited and closed-minded information imparted by the American Cancer Society, Big Pharma and Uncle Sam, all of whom seem to be on the same page, not necessarily in regards to what’s best for us but, rather, what needs to be done in order to keep the very profitable cancer industry going strong for years to come. 

The painful truth is that money has clouded the judgment and morality (if any) of the people presently in charge of breast cancer “sick care.” We can either blindly trust the half-truths, incomplete information and lies we’re being told, or we can keep reading on . . . 

Why Aren't Women Being Warned About Tight Bras?

Sydney Ross Singer, author of the book Dressed to Kill:  The Link between Breast Cancer & Bras, is one of many experts that now recognize that there may be a strong link between wearing tight bras and the subsequent development of cancer.  In spite of the fact that some studies support this conclusion, the highly-profitable cancer diagnosing/treatment industry continues to call the association a mere myth.  

If they had offered reliable studies and other forms of evidence refuting the theory, then we might say that they were doing women a service by properly putting down what would then be a mere “myth.”  But, just as the cancer cartels have done with other types of evidence that don’t support their agenda, what they have done, instead, is wage a campaign against the bra/cancer connection without the scientific evidence that should be required. 

Can anyone say conclusively that tight bras cause cancer? No, not just yet, but there is more than enough evidence to justify the funding of more intense research into the matter, research which the highly-profitable cancer industry is, so far, refusing to fund, except for some studies that have been conducted ostensibly with the express purpose of debunking the theory—and, for the record, any study with a pre-drawn conclusion (whether in favor or against it) is unacceptably biased. Women who wear bras should take the time to educate themselves about this matter.

Not only are they refusing to conclusively prove or disprove the theory but, what’s worse, they are publicly refuting a view without the scientific evidence to back up their claims.  

If the American Cancer Society (a leading proponent of the “let’s not rush to find a cure for cancer” brigade) were truly interested in finding what the truth is regarding this area of contention, then they would eagerly fund this type of objective -- unbiased and not-financially-conflicted studies that would either conclusively prove or disprove the theory. 

Why Isn't Selenium Being Aggressively Promoted?

In spite of the fact that there are tons of studies and documented testimony supporting the efficacy of selenium as an effective way to not only prevent cancer but successfully help treat it, the medical establishment is almost silent about this much safer alternative to chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.  

The lack of support for this already-proven remedy is one of hundreds of reasons why many people think the highly-profitable cancer industry is corrupt and not at all interested in finding long-term, reliable cures for cancer. 

Going as far back as 1910, evidence for the efficacy of selenium as a legitimate way to fight and prevent cancer has existed in the form of clinical studies, research endeavors, and reports/articles by experts in the life sciences.  People like Dr. Gerhard Schrauzer, for example, over a number of years accumulated scientific evidence that women with adequate amounts of selenium in the bloodstream are much less likely to ever develop breast cancer. 

More alarmingly, it was discovered that many of the women that develop breast cancer usually have low levels of selenium in their bloodstream.  

Selenium is a good anti-carcinogenic for a number of reasons. For starters, it’s one of several essential micronutrients the human body needs in order to fight off disease and stay healthy.  Other benefits of selenium include:

  • The ability to bind with cadmium (a known carcinogen that is ubiquitously found in our environment because of the extensive burning of fossil fuels) and, thus, help the body get rid of it in a timely fashion.
  • Help keep the body from becoming too acidic and, therefore, prevent the inflammation that often precedes cancer and other chronic diseases; this also helps the body to keep more oxygen and to utilize it more efficiently.
  • Helps to protect and invigorate a man’s prostate.
  • Helps to keep a woman’s breasts healthy (e.g., preventing breast cancer).
  • Helps animals to have healthy, live offspring (when added to their feed as a supplement).
  • May be more important than iodine in keeping the thyroid working at peak capacity.
  • May help in the managing of LDL (low-density lipoprotein, the "bad" cholesterol), thus reducing rates and severity of CVD (cardiovascular disease).
  • Proven in studies to aid against rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis (especially in reference to the knees).
  • May help prevent Alzheimer’s (since people suffering from the disease seem to be deficient in this nutrient).
  • And, most important of all, may help prevent cancer in general, most notably by helping to keep the body’s immune system healthy.

The fact that doctors don’t let women know about all the scientific evidence that supports the use of selenium against breast cancer is “bad advice” by omission.  

It’s the kind of dereliction of medical duty/responsibility, as a matter of fact, that fuels the notion that most doctors are more interested in treating breast cancer (with the highly-profitable chemo, radiotherapy and surgery therapies) than they are in preventing it.

Do Abortions Increase Risk of Breast Cancer?

Although more intense research is needed, some studies have demonstrated a higher incidence of breast cancer for women that undergo an abortion, when compared to women that carry a pregnancy to full term.  What is theorized is that carrying a pregnancy to full term affords a certain amount of protection against breast cancer; this protection is thought to be taken away or given up if an abortion has occurred.  

This theory is somewhat similar, physiologically speaking, to the assertion (which has been more formally established) that babies who are breastfed develop much better and succumb much less to serious diseases as they grow older. Apparently, the mother’s milk affords a special protection that babies who are not breastfed don’t receive.  

Mammograms and The Dangers of Ionizing Radiation

In general, medical professionals fail to tell patients about the very real dangers associated with the levels of ionizing radiation imparted by the most popular forms of medical imaging.  This is especially true when it comes to mammography. 

It’s a mystery, for example, why doctors insist on X-ray-utilizing mammograms when both ultrasound and MRIs can both be more safely used to screen for breast cancer.  As a matter of fact, both ultrasonography and MRIs are better suited for soft tissue medical imaging than X-rays. 

More importantly, neither ultrasound nor MRIs have been found to be carcinogenic.  X-rays, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (3-D mammography) and CT scans, on the other hand, can both induce or set the stage for cancerous growths.  In view of this, why put women through such potentially dangerous technology when safer, more effective technology is available? 

By the way, although it’s true that one X-ray imparts only a small amount of radiation, the sad, inescapable reality is that we are all already being exposed to too much radiation (because of over-used medical imaging, radioactive seafood from accidents like Fukushima, taking too many airplane flights, etc.).  

Besides, in theory, just one X-ray can be the impetus for a malignant neoplasm, especially if you are predisposed to the disease or have a weak immune system—in other words, there is no such a thing as a perfectly safe exposure level for ionizing radiation.  

Additionally, doctors for some arcane reason fail to tell patients that, if they choose to receive a 3-D type of mammogram (which is commonly the case these days), the radiation exposure is greater than that imposed by just 1 or 2 X-rays.  If a CT scan is used to screen for cancer (or to spot cancer after being prescribed for another reason), then the radiation the patient is exposed to is the equivalent of 1000 X-rays or more.  

Folks, that is a dangerously high amount of ionizing radiation to be exposed to in just one procedure.  The matter is even worse if additional scans are ordered or have to be repeated because the original one turns out to be fuzzy or improperly produced or saved.  

The bottom line is that it’s sort of ludicrous to use screening instruments to find a disease that the devices themselves can induce or set the stage for (by leaving cells’ DNA damaged, even if slightly).  What doctors need to do is to stop downplaying the dangers of ionizing radiation.  But maybe they know that, if they told women the whole, non-sugar-coated truth about how dangerous ionizing radiation is, many women might then wisely decide to forego potentially carcinogenic mammograms, especially the type involving multiple X-rays, like 3-D mammograms and CT scans.  

Besides, some experts assert that much of the scientific “evidence” that is used to defend the use of mammograms is based on faulty study designs & protocols, heavily-biased conclusions, shamefully “doctored” statistics, and the paid-for agendas of financially and professionally conflicted research sponsors, scientists and authors.  

Finally, it should also be noted that some experts, like Joel Brind, Professor of Endocrinology at Baruch College, posit that mammograms are part of a “sick care” (as opposed to a true “healthcare”) paradigm that has led to the almost relentless over-screening, misdiagnosing and over-treatment of many women, many of whom were perfectly healthy before being sucked into the medical “system.” 

This dysfunctional and strictly-financially-motivated agenda, furthermore, has too often led to tumors or growths being too quickly classified as “cancer,” even though they later turned out to be benign or not a tumor at all. This, in turn, has led to too many women being subjected unnecessarily to the use of highly toxic chemotherapy, highly experimental radiotherapy and highly risky surgery. 

The inexcusable dysfunctionality described herein is clearly spelled out in the book Over-diagnosed:  Making People Sick in Pursuit of Health.  What Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine and the author of this book, cogently posits is that looking for disease in otherwise healthy people often leads to anxiety about disease, drug side-effects and complications from surgery.

In other words, mammograms and other misused and overused tests, rather than preventing, curing or better managing disease, can sometimes be the impetus for the development of disease and/or the negative ramifications that arise out of medical incompetence, negligence and/or profit-motivated malfeasance. 

These epiphanies may not be reason enough to scrap the idea of mammograms altogether, but they should certainly make every woman much more cautious before, perhaps too willingly, submitting to such, at best, imperfect technology.  

Conclusion 

Should someone get a mammogram or not?  Well, first of all, doctors should tell the whole truth about the pros and cons of mammograms, as well as not just the potential benefits but, just as importantly, the risks. Unfortunately, though, too much information is being withheld or, in worst case scenarios, lies are being told.  

First of all, if at all possible, a patient can refuse to be subjected to ionizing radiation (from X-rays and CT scans), unless ultrasound and MRI options are not available or are simply not feasible (possibly because one can’t afford either of these safer options).  

Secondly, strive to become better educated about breast cancer—this should include information we are not likely to get from our allopathic medicine, too-obsessed-with-conventional-cancer-treatment doctors.  

Some of the most salient examples—i.e., things that can significantly increase someone's chances of getting breast cancer—include:

  • Wearing tight bras and wearing bras in general
  • Not getting adequate amounts of selenium
  • Being exposed, unnecessarily, to ionizing radiation because of the excessive use of medical imaging (when safer alternatives are available)
  • Not receiving adequate amounts of nitrilosides (e.g., Vitamin B-17) and other essential nutrients that our bodies need to fight off or suppress breast (and other forms) of cancer

The important thing to take away here is that, when it comes to breast cancer, ignorance isn’t bliss—if anything, it’s a recipe for disaster!  

“Here’s to your health and wellness!” 

References & Resources

https://www.investigatorsreport.com/medical-establishment-wont-tell-breast-cancer/

https://www.lifenews.com/2016/12/19/medical-expert-confirms-abortion-is-linked-to-increased-risk-of-breast-cancer-for-women/

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fake-breast-cancer-news-american-cancer-society

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/cancer-establishment-admits-wee28099re-getting-overtested-and-overtreated/

http://www.johnhorgan.org/

https://www.wakerad.com/feature-stories/mammography-vs-thermography-which-is-better-at-detecting-breast-cancer/

http://www.janethull.com/newsletter/0606/natures_cancer_prevention_vitamin_b17.php

http://www.vitaminb17.org/contents.html

10/13/2018 7:00:00 AM
Fred Fletcher
Written by Fred Fletcher
Fred Fletcher is a hard working Consumer Advocacy Health Reporter. Education: HT-CNA; DT-ATA; MS/PhD Post-Graduate Certificates/Certifications: • Project Management • Food Safety • HIPAA Compliance • Bio-statistical Analysis & Reporting • Regulatory Medical Writing • Life Science Programs Theses & Dis...
View Full Profile

Comments
Good work, Fred. It's a mystery to many health experts like myself why we continue to use X-rays to spot cancer. X-rays are ideal for hard tissue especially for bones. The alternatives are safer and more effective as you correctly point out.
Posted by Dr. Dario Herrera
Thank you, Fred, for this article! It's incredible to me how badly brainwashed most American women are about basic things like colonoscopies, Flu shots, hip replacement surgery, breast cancer and other "cash cows" for the medical conglomerates. Yes, some treatments and procedures can serve a useful purpose but, when some things are pushed because they make some people a lot of money that's when we should draw the line. Some women just do what they are told without giving much thought to consequences. I think that these women for example that are undergoing mastectomies just because they have been told that they may get breast cancer in the future is the epitome of stupidity and gullibility. Women need to start waking up and being smart about choices in life. Don't just do what you're told! Investigate. Get input from all sides, not just the people making money from your woes. Have I said enough?
Posted by Susan Blakely
Wellness.com does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment nor do we verify or endorse any specific business or professional listed on the site. Wellness.com does not verify the accuracy or efficacy of user generated content, reviews, ratings or any published content on the site. Use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use.
©2022 Wellness®.com is a registered trademark of Wellness.com, Inc. Powered by Earnware