Better Than a Cure for Breast Cancer 

Is Knowing the Cause and How to Prevent It

by Darrell  Stoddard    Copyright 2000

         Breast cancer that is prevented does not need to be cured.  Cures are expensive, prevention is free.  We now know how to prevent most breast cancer! 
         Eighty two year old John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., whose medical and scientific credentials fill five pages, states in an epic 1999 (699 page) study that "Between 83 percent and 90 percent of all breast cancer can be attributed to medical radiation (X-rays)."
         ( For an executive summary see:   Preventing Breast Cancer, 49 chapters of an earlier study by Gofman, is also on the Web.  See: ). 
          Just a few decades ago, X-rays (called Roentgen therapy) were routinely used, not to diagnose, but to treat arthritis, all inflammatory processes, asthma, acne, eczema, hyperthyroidism, mastitis, pneumonia, ringworm, pruritus, psoriasis, shingles, tuberculosis, and whooping cough.
           Between 1920 and 1960, millions of children were x-rayed and then irradiated with X-rays for an "enlarged thymus" (normal in a child's development) because of the false belief that the thymus could block air passages, cause congestion, and even be the cause of sudden death in children.
          "Well baby exams" in the 30s, 40s, and 50s included X-rays of the entire baby as often as every 3 months.  The breast cancer we are seeing today is most often in women who received such exposure.   X-rays are no longer used for well baby exams or to treat the above conditions.  And every doctor knows the harmful effect of such treatments.
         Still, X-rays are not listed as a risk factor for breast cancer and dosage is not monitored or recorded.   No one wants to face the fact that modern medicine made irreversible mistakes -- or that the use of X-rays today (added to past exposure) is still causing cancer.
         Never does Gofman say X-rays should not be used.  His plea is to reduce the dose, monitor and record dosage, and eliminate unnecessary exposure. 
         The dose of present X-radiation could be more than cut in half, according to Gofman, without sacrificing the quality of any medical procedure.  Gofman is especially concerned about CT scans and fluoroscopy where the X-ray beam stays on. 
         Even though the effect of all risk factors for breast cancer is minimal compared to the risk of X-rays, Dr. Gofman does not depreciate the effect of non-radiation risk factors.  He states, "It is safe to say that multiple causes generally (perhaps always) contribute to a SINGLE CASE of fatal cancer.  The case would not occur when it does, without co-action by multiple causes." 
          Gofman shows by "any reasonable standard of biomedical proof" why there is no safe level of X- ray exposure and why the "safe-dose claim is a fallacy."  The body is able to repair the effects of free radical damage but can never repair the DNA damage done by not even "a millionth or any other tiny fraction of a rad" of X-rays. 
          No honest scientist can read Chapter 45 of Preventing Breast Cancer (web address in the third paragraph) and still maintain the "safe-dose" claim. 
          The lowest possible levels of ionizing radiation or X-rays produced more cancer than was expected.  One tenth the dose did not produce one tenth as much cancer, but more than one tenth. 
          It is misleading, if not false, for doctors to say, "The dose is so low you don't have to worry," especially when the doctor has no knowledge of past exposure. 
          No one wants to face the total cumulative effect of X-ray examinations.  Dr. Gofman's research begs the question, "Are doctors, chiropractors, and dentists who use X-rays, CT scans, and fluoriscopy, without telling patients of the risk, without recording dosage or considering past exposure, any less culpable than cigarette companies who knew the harmful effect of cigarettes?" 
          It was the "kettle (unknowingly) calling the pot black" for doctors  who used X-rays to condemn cigarette companies.  Will such doctors now be less defensive than the tobacco industry?
         Gofman estimates in the new study that not just breast cancer but 50% or more of all types of cancer and "60% of the death rate from heart disease is also X-ray induced!" 
         This is not the opinion of someone with an ax to grind or something to sell but the outcome of extensive, painstaking research from one of the largest medical studies ever done involving the entire population of the United States for 50 years. 
         Although the dosage of many X-ray procedures have been lowered, there are new X-ray tests such as CT scans that expose women to as much X-radiation as ever. 
         Doctors and X-ray technicians go to great lengths to protect themselves, but there is still not enough concern for  how much exposure or how many X-ray procedures their patients receive. If this were not true, radiologists, doctors, chiropractors, and dentists would know and always record the dosage. They would take a history of past exposure and consider this before using any medical X-rays.  This is not happening.
         No doctor, without knowing the total dosage of previous X-rays, is wise enough to know if additional exposure is worth the risk. 
         It took lawsuits and pressure from outside the tobacco industry to make cigarette companies accountable. To save people from cancer and for the changes that must come, the public needs to know the harmful effects of current medical X-rays. 
         Should we protect the reputation of  modern medicine by ignoring the X-ray/cancer connection?  "Silence," Gofman says, "would contribute to the harm of millions of people."
         Why even look for a breast cancer cure if we fail to recognize an indisputable major cause - the cumulative dose of past and present medical X-rays?
         There is no question that the two most important cancer discoveries of the 20th Century were the:

Smoking/Cancer Connection
and Gofman's
X-ray/Cancer Research 

The first is the outcome of hundreds of studies by untold numbers over a period of fifty years.  The latter 699 page study, if done by many men would still be a landmark scientific achievement.  (The reference section, alone, of cited peer review articles from  scientific journals fills 31 pages of small type.)  It was produced by Gofman after he was 75 years old! 
          Previously Gofman authored many books and more than a hundred articles in scientific peer-review journals. 
          More than that of any other, it was research by Gofman that brought an end to Operation Plowshare (the so-called "peaceful uses of atomic energy" which called for licencing 1000 nuclear power plants, detonating hundreds or thousands of atomic bombs in the Rocky Mountains to liberate natural gas, and using nuclear explosions to excavate canals and ship harbors).  This, and stopping atomic bomb tests, saved more people from cancer than what any man has ever done.  Still, Gofman will not accept a royalty or commission of any kind for his books about preventing cancer. 
         Ongoing work by Gofman includes tracking the health effects of nuclear fallout from Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl.  He estimates 200,000 deaths from  the latter. 
         No one questions that gamma radiation from the fallout of atomic bombs causes cancer.  Gofman cites research that show X-rays are twice as carcinogenic per rad as gamma rays.  If we believe that atomic fallout causes cancer, we must also face the fact that X-rays cause cancer and begin measures to reduce exposure.  There are X-ray units in use which expose patients to 10, 20, and even 50 times as much radiation as needed to obtain a good X-ray image. 
         Many will discount Gofman's latest work without reading it.  Most doctors will concede that X-rays are harmful but question the percentage of cancers caused by X-rays.  Some would rather their patients not know that X-rays cause cancer.  Others will ignorantly repeat the "safe-dose" claim.  Can we afford to wait until there is a consensus? 
         Gofman's research will be a very "bitter pill" for modern medicine to swallow.  Without it, healing of the health care system cannot occur.
         Though the world has always crucified it's saviors, the day will come when no one will question Gofman's research (as no one today questions the connection between cigarettes and cancer). 

Pain Research Institute
266 East 3200 North
Provo, UT  84604  U.S.A.
Phone:  801-377-6900
Web site:
E-mail:  [email protected] 

Addendum to: 
Better Than a Cure for Breast Cancer 
by Darrell Stoddard     Copyright 2000

          Gofman states that, "multiple causes generally (perhaps always) contribute to a SINGLE CASE of fatal cancer.  The case would not occur when it does, without co-action by multiple causes."   What are some of the other causes of breast cancer which alone may not cause cancer but by co-action with X-radiation cause the disease?
          The most important may be a discovery by medical anthropologists Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, who in a study involving 4,700 U.S. women found that women who wear a bra 24 hours a day had a cancer rate that was 125 times higher than women who don't wear a bra! 
          How long women wear a bra each day makes a major difference.  "Women who wore bras for over 12 hours daily, but not to sleep, have a 21-fold greater chance of developing breast cancer than do women who remove their bras before twelve hours."  (For a complete report see: *Could Bra-Wearing Increase the Incidence of Breast Cancer? on this web site) 
          Not wearing a bra or reducing the time a bra is worn may be the most important step women can take to minimize the harmful effect of previous exposure to X-rays.
          In addition to lowering the dose of current X-ray procedures and not wearing a bra, are there other protective options to reduce cancer risk?  Diagnostic instruments and tests exist which use no ionizing radiation, that are as effective as X-rays. 
          A controlled  blind  study to detect breast cancer was done 15 years ago by the University of Miami School of Medicine on 700 high risk patients.  It found that scanning the breast with infrared light and an infrared camera and no X-rays was at least or more sensitive and specific than mammography which uses X-rays.  (See Mammography -- Is There a Better Way to Detect Breast Cancer? which follows).
          Gastrointestinal (GI) diagnostic tests not only subject patients to large doses of X-radiation but require them to drink a radioactive cocktail or take a barium enema as well.  Chinese scientists have developed instrumentation referred to as an "Electrogastrograph" (which uses no radiation) that will non- invasively diagnose everything found by upper and lower GI tests.  I couldn't find a gastroenterologist that would even talk to me about the Chinese instrument or method.  There was no interest. 
          Ionizing imaging procedures (X-ray, CT Scan and fluoroscopy) used for determining the cause of non broken-bone pain, are largely futile because pain is the breaking or suppression of endogenous electrical signals between cells --which can not be seen by any imaging device.  The Chinese call this the "Blockage of Chi."  Fortunately, in spite of what nearly everyone believes, pain and "Chi" can be measured non-invasively with simple electronic instruments that use no ionizing radiation. (See *The Real Cause of Pain -- Why it Still Hurts when the Doctor Can Find Nothing Wrong in the book Pain Free for life.)
          Alfred Nickel, an oral surgeon, provides the following cancer information:  "All local anesthetics currently approved for use in the United States (lidocaine,  mepivacaine, bupivacaine, procaine, etc.) are broken down in the body to anilines.  The FDA did studies to determine if the breakdown of local anesthetics to anilines is correct, and in 1993, demonstrated that human tissues exposed to lidocaine (the most commonly used local anesthetic) converted 67% of the lidocaine to a known aniline (2,6-xylidine).  This particular aniline is a recognized animal and, very probably human carcinogen capable of causing breast cancer (animal studies 99.999%, causative), prostate cancer, brain cancer, leukemia, sarcomas, carcinomas, and, in fact, pretty much the whole spectrum of recognized cancers.  The aniline (2,6-xylidine) is one of the carcinogenic chemical components of tobacco, but we now know that injecting 1 cc of 2% lidocaine will result in the same aniline dose as smoking 94,000 unfiltered cigarettes!"  (See complete study and references at: /Documents/AnilineToxicity Letter.htm   and 
          In 1993 the FDA found the lowest dose tested of a metabolite from the topical anesthetic Emla caused cancer in both rats and mice. (See "Emla" in Physician's Desk Reference.)
          The Biennial Report on Carcinogens states that local anesthetics fulfill the requirements for listing as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" and the FDA now requires a cancer warning in the package inserts of new pharmaceuticals containing aniline-based local anesthetics. Why not require the warning on all local anesthetics (not just new)? 
          When Dr. Nickel contacted the FDA about the need for warning labels, "the FDA insisted that, lacking alternative non-carcinogenic local anesthetics, regulation of these pharmaceuticals would be dependent on considerations of risk verses benefit."  How can a doctor or dentist make that decision if he does not know the danger?  Most doctors and dentists do not.
          Medical procedures and dentistry can be done, or endured without local anesthesia.  How much better it would be if the doctor knew and patients were given a choice of whether or not to receive local anesthetics (or X-rays) that may lead to cancer. 

Is there is a Better Way to Detect Breast Cancer?
by Darrell Stoddard,     copyright 2000

          It  may interest those concerned with breast cancer to know there is another method for detecting breast cancer (not thermography) that is as sensitive and specific as mammography. 
          In a controlled blind study of 700 high risk patients performed 14 years ago by the University of Miami School of Medicine, it was found that scanning the breast with infrared light and an infrared camera was at least or more sensitive and specific than mammography ("Infrared Light Scanning of the Breast" The American Surgeon,March 1986, Vol. 52, No. 3). 
          All of the cancers found by examination and by mammography in the 700 women were found by Infrared Light Scanning of the breast.  The I.L.S. method also detected three cancers that were missed by mammography.  This was not statistically significant but very significant for those three women. 
          Infrared breast cancer detection does not subject the patient to ionizing radiation (X-rays).  For this reason the test could be done every month in high risk women.  Mammography can not be repeated that often because of the radiation. 
          Many women develop breast cancer that grows fast enough between mammograms to require a mastectomy. 
          Infrared scanning to detect breast cancer is not widely available.  Why is this safe and better method of detecting breast cancer not being utilized? 
           It is human nature to resist change. The wheels turn ponderously slow.  Many new medical technologies are not accepted until a whole generation of doctors (who are trained one way) are replaced by new doctors with different training.  There is also the element of "protecting ones turf."  Oncologists and Radiologists, who are the cancer experts, will not easily yield their domain to an instrument that uses no radiation (which could be used by doctors with different medical training).  Doctors who are not radiologists also do not want the liability of misdiagnosing something that might turn out to be malignant.  Last, it is a question of medical economics - expensive mammography  instruments must be paid for even though infrared breast scanning systems cost less.  For these reasons women are not getting what is best for them. 
          I called on a doctor reputed to be one of the leading breast cancer experts in the United States.  When I told him there may be a better way to detect breast cancer than mammography, he replied, "That's bull shit!"  I showed him a copy of the Infrared Light Scanning of the Breast study and told him it was a blind study of 700 high risk women done in a U.S. medical school and published in an AMA Journal.  He then repeated, "It's still bull shit."  He then made it clear that this was the end of the conversation.  So much for new cancer discoveries being accepted.
          Even though there is a better way to detect breast cancer, it is infinitely more important to prevent the disease than detect it. 
          Thanks to John Gofman, Sydney Ross Singer, Soma Grismaijer, and Alfred Nickel, we now know how to prevent most breast cancer.  Their research which could save women from a horrible disease and death is being ignored, or rejected,  the same as the infrared study.  The major battles in the "war on cancer" have been won but unfortunately they are not politically correct. 

Summary of vital information: 

There is a better way to detect breast cancer than mammography.

"Between 83 percent and 90 percent of all breast cancer can be attributed to medical radiation (X- rays)."

50% or more of all types of cancer and "60% of the death rate from heart disease is also X-ray induced!" 

Women who wear a bra 24 hours a day have a cancer rate that is 125 times higher than women who don't wear a bra at all! 

Women who wear bras for over 12 hours daily, but not to sleep, have a 21-fold greater chance of developing breast cancer than do women who remove their bras before twelve hours." 

"Injecting 1 cc of 2% lidocaine will result in the same aniline dose as smoking 94,000 unfiltered cigarettes!" 

          *A  reprint of the "Infrared Light Scanning of the Breast" cancer study, and related information will be sent if requested. (Please include $3.00 for postage and copying.):

Darrell Stoddard, Founder - Pain Research Institute
266 East 3200 North,  Provo, UT  84604  U.S.A.

E-mail:  [email protected]
Web site:

Don't forget to Bookmark this page

Return to Homepage of The Pain Research Institute