The New York Times recently shed light on "a wide-ranging surveillance operation by the FDA against a group of its own scientists". Indeed the scientists correspondence included "secretly captured thousands of e-mails that the disgruntled scientists sent privately to members of Congress, lawyers, labor officials, journalists and even President Obama."
A devastating new report commissioned by the National Cancer Institute reveals that our 40-year long 'War on Cancer' has been waged against a vastly misunderstood 'enemy,' that in many cases represented no threat to human health whatsoever.
Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the promotion of breast cancer itself.
A quarter century old practice: X-ray based breast screening, has now been confirmed (twice in 3 years) to cause more harm than good, and by what is perhaps the most respected research institution within "evidence-based medicine": The Cochrane Collaboration
Breast cancer screening methods aimed at "early detection", whether they are orthodox tests such as mammography or alternative modalities such as thermography, have been marketed as procedures of "preventive medicine", allegedly helping to decrease mortality from breast cancer. But is this really true?
Breast cancer is one of the major killers of women in the United States. Sadly, most women have no idea that simply not wearing a bra can have a major impact on the likelihood of developing breast cancer.
A groundbreaking new study published in the British Medical Journal reveals regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates – the only true measure of whether they benefit women who undergo them.
Many of the drugs used to treat breast cancer today are probable or known cancer-causing agents. Tamoxifen, for instance, is classified by the World Health Organization as a "human carcinogen," but recent news headlines praised extended use of this drug for "saving lives." It is obvious that the mainstream media has swallowed the tamoxifen-flavored Kool-Aid ... will you?
Many of the drugs used to treat breast cancer today are probable or known cancer-causing agents. Tamoxifen, for instance, is classified by the World Health Organization as a "human carcinogen," but recent news headlines praised extended use of this drug for "saving lives." It is obvious that the mainstream media has swallowed the tamoxifen-flavored Kool-Aid ... will you?
We are bombarded every day by harmful radiation from medical tests like X-rays and CT scans, radon gas and radiation from space. And there is always worry about fallout from disasters like the meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. How do you protect yourself from radiation?
A disturbing new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has brought mainstream attention to the fact that mammography screenings have caused millions of US women to suffer unnecessary surgeries and chemotherapy and radiation treatments over the past 30 years.
Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the promotion of breast cancer itself.
You may have heard of the latest mammogram study published in the BMJ, which found no reduction in the breast cancer specific mortality in those who undergo these screenings. Why did it cause such a backlash?
A new study finds vitamin D -- the 'sunlight vitamin' -- strikes to the very heart of breast cancer malignancy.
Millions have marched for "cancer causes." Millions more have been diagnosed "early" and now believe screening saved their lives. But a new study confirms something we have been reporting on since our inception: In most cases, screening not only has not "saved lives," but actually increases your risk of dying.
A powerful new study on the failure of mammograms to protect women against breast cancer, curiously absent from mainstream news health reporting, was published this month in The European Journal of Public Health
New study: women with the real facts about mammograms are more likely to opt out of the test.
The New York Times recently shed light on "a wide-ranging surveillance operation by the FDA against a group of its own scientists". Indeed the scientists correspondence included "secretly captured thousands of e-mails that the disgruntled scientists sent privately to members of Congress, lawyers, labor officials, journalists and even President Obama."
You may have heard of the latest mammogram study published in the BMJ, which found no reduction in the breast cancer specific mortality in those who undergo these screenings. Why did it cause such a backlash?
The prospect of developing cancer is a frightening one. Sadly, this fear is leading many to undergo dangerous and harmful cancer screenings that, ironically, can cause the very diseases patients hope to avoid.
Breast cancer screening methods aimed at "early detection", whether they are orthodox tests such as mammography or alternative modalities such as thermography, have been marketed as procedures of "preventive medicine", allegedly helping to decrease mortality from breast cancer. But is this really true?
A new study flies in the face of popular misconceptions around the purported "life saving" benefits of a number of cancer screening programs, reminding us that real prevention will depend on what you eat, how we move our bodies, and related lifestyle-modifiable factors -- something the medical establishment underplays to the detriment of countless citizens around the world.
Despite what millions still believe, mammography does not "save lives." To the contrary, it increases total mortality.
A quarter century old practice: X-ray based breast screening, has now been confirmed (twice in 3 years) to cause more harm than good, and by what is perhaps the most respected research institution within "evidence-based medicine": The Cochrane Collaboration