Should a woman get mammograms or not, is the question. Actually, this has been the question. Now, finally, we have a clear inescapable answer. Thanks to an extensive, independent investigation of the matter.
Screening with mammography, as you may know, has long been hailed as a breakthrough in breast cancer detection. However, the diagnostic procedure has remained controversial for quite some time. Some studies endorse the benefits of mammography, some do not.
Unfortunately, most often traditional medical doctors, "skeptics", and women are poorly informed about the mammography debate (more informally referred to as the "mammography wars").
Strongly influenced by authorized mammogram guidelines, addressing issues such as mammogram frequency or when to get a mammogram, women have been led to believe that the breast screening procedure is indispensable, practically harmless, and that it is going to save them from an early death of breast cancer.
The actual facts, however, show a completely different picture as discussed thoroughly in "The Mammogram Myth: The Independent Investigation Of Mammography The Medical Profession Doesn't Want You To Know About" by Rolf Hefti. The treatise cuts through the popular but superficial and specious pro-mammography mantra in an unprecedented captivating manner.
Here is a brief outline of the (e)book by its author...
“It is quite probable, that from the time a person starts first grade, to the time they get a Ph.D. or M.D., they never once hear both sides of any issue from the people on both sides of a fence. And even if they do, they have been so brainwashed by one side, or they are so interested in the benefits of one side, they simply pay no attention to the "other side".” (R. Webster Kehr, Health Writer) [emphasis added]
A sincerely well-meaning conventional doctor can be sincerely (unknowingly) wrong by only possessing knowledge from "one side of the fence". Selective knowledge leads to bias in favor of the familiar "one side of the fence" because this bias is the result of an assessment of, and judgment from, incomplete partial scientific data.
Arguably, the biggest gift to humanity –and the biggest threat to the ruling powers in a corporate nation– is a person's courage and wisdom to think outside of the propaganda of the dominant pillars of his/her culture (such as mainstream medicine, for example).
Because fundamentally, it's kind of like ...
“If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking.” (Haruki Murakami, Best-selling Author)
And what "everyone else is thinking" or believing is frequently incorrect. Or, in the words of Malcom Kendrick, MD:
"[...] almost everybody being wrong has been a quite normal phenomenon throughout human history. So the fact that there are only a few dissenting voices out there shouldn't bother you unduly."
Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, basically said the same thing in regard to medical affairs when he stated in 2006:
"The history of medicine is littered with treatments that seemed to make sense but which ultimately did more harm than good."
This treatise on mammographic screening is the result of an independent investigation evaluating the value of the famous breast exam, with particular emphasis on the neglected, much lesser known "other side of the fence".
"[...] propaganda loses its effectiveness if people understand what is going on." (Christopher Simpson, Communications Theorist & Author)
But you will only know "what is going on" with mammography if you're awake, rather than sleeping. Being awake means having an alert, questioning mindset. Being asleep means compliantly accepting, without questioning and being critical, whatever the medical profession, or anyone else, propagates.
Only if you're awake, will you let light (the truth) in –including light from the "other side of the fence". Only if you're awake and let light in, no matter what "side of the fence" it originates from, can you orient your life constructively, by avoiding dangers and enjoying benefits.
In his book "Less Medicine, More Health" (2015), Gilbert Welch, MD, a prominent critic of mammograms and cancer screening in general, wrote:
"To have a more balanced view of medical care requires some attention to the other side of the story. [...]. [...] if the American public knew the full story about the benefits, harms, and uncertainties of medical care, many would choose to have less. Not less care, less medicine –meaning the interventions of testing, medications, procedures, surgeries, and devices." [emphasis added]
As far as I'm aware of, this (e)book on mammographic imaging screening is the only analytical authentic report available, anywhere in the world, by an independent researcher (=someone not tied to the mammography-medical industry, or anyone else) that methodologically and comprehensively addresses the three most important questions women have about this breast cancer exam, as cited above.
The work is the end result of a 3-year unique investigation. I began researching the popular screening method in 2010 and first published the e-book in 2013. I poured over hundreds of studies and investigative accounts (the digital book contains over 850 references and around 100,000 words, which is a full-size printed book). The endeavor took up an extraordinary amount of my time and efforts to find the real facts about mammographic screening (and so you don't have to do that research, unless you want to).
"Most of what you know is wrong or at least there is no evidence for it, and you are being injured by the lack of true knowledge. [...]. [...] when it comes to your health, the wrong things you know matter a lot." (Michael Anchors MD, PhD, in 2012)
To immediately give you a better understanding of what the (e)book is all about, here is what Raymond Peat, PhD, author of "From PMS to Menopause: Female Hormones in Context", said in the foreword:
"The Mammogram Myth by Rolf Hefti is very very good, so much more than just a study of mammograms. Women concerned about the risk of breast cancer will obviously want to read it, and if doctors who regularly advise their patients to have mammograms decide to read it looking for justification of their policy, they will encounter information about cancer in general and health in general that should change their life.
And it's a good introduction to political-economics, anyone interested in propaganda analysis and in how "science" works is likely to find it worth spending some time with."
"From error to error, one discovers the entire truth." (Sigmund Freud, 1856-1939, Founder of Psychoanalysis)
IntroductionSection I: Background
Section X: Bibliography
About The Author
The following material is a short introductory overview of some of the major findings presented in the (e)book. (For scientific references corroborating the statements in the article here see the actual e-book.)
"Unfortunately, medicine is frequently a big business so the default is to try to sell things. So you hear a lot of things that are under the guise of health information that are actually advertisements with all the things you get with advertisements, including a corruption of the truth." (Otis Brawley, MD, Oncologist and Chief Medical Officer of The American Cancer Society, in 2012) [emphasis added]
The story of breast cancer mammograms –i.e., the history of mammography– is largely the story of spinning insignificant or non-existent benefits and downplaying well-known risks.
Another appropriate way to describe that unofficial truth is this: by and large, the history of screening with mammography is the story of...
It's the story of acknowledging those advantageous "facts" that support the
medical orthodoxy's dogma of the cherished screening modality while
ignoring the substantial, highly relevant facts invalidating their dogma
Corroborating Brawley's abovecited observation, John Abramson, MD, a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, had explained that:
"Rigging medical studies, misrepresenting research results published in even the most influential medical journals, and withholding the findings of whole studies that don't come out in a sponsor's favor have all become the accepted norm in commercially sponsored medical research." [emphasis added]
According to the authoritative narrative of conventional modern medicine, mammography "does no (or little) harm" and "saves many lives". However, the scientific facts, unlike the medical profession's dogmatic proclamations, reveal that neither assertion is accurate.
Orthodox medicine arrived at their pro-screening views by ignoring, obscuring, and carefully hiding, a large amount of well-established breast cancer information and mammography facts ("inconvenient truths") that threaten one of their central, and most lucrative, medical interventions: the use of medical x-rays.
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” (Aldous L. Huxley, 1894-1963, Author)
Many women and regular doctors may say they want to know the real facts about mammography but when they are presented with robust factual data opposing the official reigning medical narrative, typically, they are rather quick to dismiss or completely ignore them.
Why should you trust someone's advice on mammograms who disregards or rejects solid facts?
I reckon that the ultimate proof of whether a medical doctor is really "good" or patient-oriented (=avoids the things that harm patients, first and foremost) is when he/she actually acknowledges and acts according to the real facts (such as those on the mammographic procedure) rather than a self-serving, dogmatic, medical paradigm.
If breast cancer causes are addressed, it needs to be done in an uncompromising sincere fashion. This means correctly recognizing, identifying, and acknowledging the proven causes –particularly when they are well known and remain valid as with cancer of the breast.
But that isn't the case with the medical establishment and (breast) cancer. Orthodox medicine is inclined to talk more about breast cancer risk factors but tends to stay away from naming the causes of breast cancer.
Of most significance, mainstream medicine seems to have a natural aversion to properly acknowledging and implicating their interventions with harm.
What causes breast cancer?
Advocates of the orthodox medical culture claim that smoking, alcohol, infections, genetics, inflammation, hormonal aspects, and nutritional imbalances are the risk factors or causes of cancer. However, the medical profession has known for a very long time that exposure to low-dosage ionizing radiation (such as from medical x-ray radiation) is a major proven cause of human cancer.
And, since the 1960s/70s, it became evident that ionizing radiation is one of the proven main causes for breast cancer. Moreover, legitimate investigative research firmly established the profound dangers of radiation and has documented that ionizing radiation, particularly from so-called low-dose medical x-rays (especially the exposure to them during the in utero period), is the dominant cause of cancer –specifically breast cancer.
In other words...
One of the core medical modalities used to diagnose, treat and "cure" all types of ailments including breast cancer, the use of x-rays/low-dose radiation (LDR), is the prime cause of the disease.
So, the answer to the question "are mammograms dangerous?" is a resounding "yes".
Also, while mammogram radiation exposure signifies very low doses, which according to conventional medicine represent mere "hypothetical" risks, the actual facts about radiation and ionizing radiation side effects irrefutably and clearly demonstrate that even traditional film-screen mammograms cause cancer (i.e., they are carcinogenic) –neither are digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)/tomography (a.k.a 3D mammograms), or a diagnostic mammogram exempt from this causality.
Even the seemingly unbeatable value of free mammograms is differently perceived following this correct understanding of radiation risks. And so is participating in a breast cancer awareness campaign (such as "mamming"), wearing a popular breast cancer logo, or donating money to a non-profit cancer research charity supporting the use of mammography, such as Susan G. Komen.
And because of the medical orthodoxy's disregard of the scientific evidence about the true dangers of ionizing radiation there are now mammogram machines in operation calibrated to emit the type of lower energy ionizing radiation known for decades to be much more harmful (=more carcinogenic, for instance) to the human organism (via greater linear energy transfer) than higher energy x-rays.
Besides providing answers to such questions as "what is radiation?" and "does radiation cause cancer?", this mammography e-book also reveals that the damage and the side effects of radiation don't just encompass the activation of inflammatory substances (as seen in the bystander effect) and the induction of genetic mutations but also... (find out more in the digital book).
"When robust [medical] research has shown that a product is dangerous, numerous substandard studies are produced saying the opposite, which confuse the public because –as journalists will tell you– 'researchers disagree'. [...]. Create a lot of paid noise and confuse people into disbelieving the original, rigorous study and believing the noise instead. [...]. This doubt industry is very effective at distracting people into ignoring the harms –the industry buys time while people continue to die. This is corruption [...]." (Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD, Mammogram Scientist & Medical Researcher, in 2013) [explanation & emphasis added]
What is mammography?
Here's a useful mammography definition: it is a technical procedure aimed at the detection of early breast cancer symptoms (e.g., a breast cancer lump), based on the medical presumption that their early discovery (and subsequent treatment) will reduce or prevent the incidence (occurrence) of advanced late-stage, potentially deadly, breast cancers.
Among the bigger mammogram side effects, or dangers of mammography, is that many patients end up getting overdiagnosed (which means they basically got misdiagnosed).
The medical allopathy asserts that mammogram screening reduces the need for invasive breast cancer treatments such as surgery, cancer radiation therapy (radiotherapy), or chemotherapy because cancers are detected in the early, curable stages.
Yet, research studies by independent investigators (e.g., Peter Gotzsche, MD) uncovered again and again an increase of these standard breast cancer protocols following mammographic breast examinations. For instance, cytotoxic chemotherapy for breast cancer isn't uncommon, and numerous women end up getting a lumpectomy or a (double) mastectomy on the heels of a breast biopsy –sometimes requiring breast reconstructive surgery afterwards.
Moreover, all invasive cancer modalities (e.g., x-ray therapy) significantly increase the risk of secondary breast cancer.
Why more breast cancer treatments?
Methods of breast cancer examination and their findings, such as an abnormal mammogram, may denote microcalcifications, dense breast tissue/breast mass, or some sort of irregular tissue growth (e.g., breast lumps, fibroadenomas, breast cysts, lobular carcinoma in situ, or ductal breast cancer such as ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]).
...in a large percentage of mammogram results and findings denoting breast cancer the physical abnormalities detected by a pathologist in mammogram photos and breast exam videos are pseudo-cancers (=non-cancers or "stage zero" cancers), tumors that do not progress, rather than growths denoting malignant invasive breast cancer. By late 2013, these early stage or stage zero pseudo-cancers have also been more commonly labeled “IDLE” (indolent lesions).
Essentially, these particular physical symptoms of breast cancer represent a form of false positive findings.
In short, a mammographic breast cancer diagnosis based on histological and pathological breast cancer symptoms is frequently a misdiagnosis (in terms of the medical doctrine –i.e., the dogma of genetic determinism– that these "cancers" will result in a patient's death), such as in cases of overdiagnosis.
But these excess breast "cancer" tumors (or signs of breast cancer) all tend to get treated, representing cases of overtreatment. At a heavy cost for many women as now many healthy women will receive invasive treatments for breast cancer –"cancers" which, in reality, are non-cancers (tissue abnormalities that never lead to the demise of the patients). The situation denotes that the medical profession has a poor understanding or strong ambiguity in regard to the basic question, "what is breast cancer?"
Genetic dogmatism along with its misleading propagandized rhetoric of "mammography saves lives" has also created phenomenons such as the "Angelina Jolie Effect" where many women, even women below age 40, are having a "prophylactic" bilateral mastectomy.
Unfortunately, the induction of tremendous damage to (healthy) women begins with the comparatively innocuous but quite common experience that breast mammography is painful (mammograms hurt). But it doesn't stop with overdiagnosis due to uncertainties in the interpretation of breast cancer pathology or an inconclusive mammogram because, in addition, there are the issues of recurrent breast cancer and metastasis of secondary distant cancers, and... (find out more in the e-book).
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” (Thomas Paine, 1737-1809, Political Theorist, Activist, and Author)
Because mammography screening finds breast cancer in the early stages of development, the theoretical presumption is that this will lead to a decrease in breast cancer mortality. Official breast cancer statistics reveal a decline in breast cancer deaths. The cancer establishment claims that mammographic screening is a significant factor for making strides against breast cancer.
However, the endlessly repeated mantra of the mainstream cancer industry, and its proponents and allies, that the mammographic screening test saves lives is a good example of specious argumentation.
In "The Language War" (2000) linguist and author Robin Lakoff, PhD, explained that:
"There are different kinds of "facts". [...] there are [all] kinds of beliefs we often refer to as "facts" [...]. These are "facts," "truths," or "realities" only as long as the majority of us believe in them and act accordingly. Hence they are manipulable by language, and we must view all such purported facts with some suspicion, attractive as they may be." [explanation & emphasis added]
A function of language is as a tool of thought control. A misleading choice of marketing language by merchants of medical products, as in the dissemination of beliefs as "facts" about mammography, and... (find out more in the e-book).
"You are less likely to do the wrong thing if you believe that "the authorities are always wrong," because then you will begin to question their assumptions, evaluate their evidence, and examine their reasoning." (Ray Peat, PhD, Biologist, in 1997)
In this investigation of the most widely known diagnostic breast cancer exam you will discover:
This (e)book about the most famous screening method offers some extremely revealing information, practically never mentioned in other screening publications, such as...
Much of the information in this e-book is simply "too uncomfortable" or "too inconvenient" for many to acknowledge. Oftentimes, this is because of political, sociological, or economic reasons, as you will learn from the (e)book...
And here is the most exciting news...
"The books we need are the kind that act upon us like a misfortune, that make us suffer like the death of someone we love more than ourselves, that make us feel as though we were on the verge of suicide, or lost in a forest remote from all human habitation –a book should serve as the ax for the frozen sea within us." (Franz Kafka, 1883-1924, Novelist)
... You only pay US$7.99 To Get Your Own Copy! (roughly the price of a couple of cups of gourmet coffee)
Click HERE now to sample or purchase this e-book at Amazon as a Kindle Edition.
This ebook is also available for purchase at:
and other fine (e)book retailers.