Better Than a Cure
for Breast Cancer
Is Knowing the Cause and
Stoddard Copyright 2000
Breast cancer that
is prevented does not need to be cured. Cures are expensive,
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
and 90 percent of all breast cancer can be attributed to medical
( For an executive
summary see: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/.
Preventing Breast Cancer, 49 chapters of an earlier study by Gofman, is
also on the Web. See: http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PBC/indexT.html
Just a few
ago, X-rays (called Roentgen therapy) were routinely used, not to
but to treat arthritis, all inflammatory processes, asthma, acne,
hyperthyroidism, mastitis, pneumonia, ringworm, pruritus, psoriasis,
tuberculosis, and whooping cough.
1920 and 1960, millions of children were x-rayed and then irradiated
X-rays for an "enlarged thymus" (normal in a child's development)
of the false belief that the thymus could block air passages, cause
and even be the cause of sudden death in children.
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
in women who received such exposure. X-rays are no longer
for well baby exams or to treat the above conditions. And every
knows the harmful effect of such treatments.
Still, X-rays are
not listed as a risk factor for breast cancer and dosage is not
or recorded. No one wants to face the fact that modern
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,
and record dosage, and eliminate unnecessary exposure.
The dose of present
X-radiation could be more than cut in half, according to Gofman,
sacrificing the quality of any medical procedure. Gofman is
concerned about CT scans and fluoroscopy where the X-ray beam stays
Even though the effect
of all risk factors for breast cancer is minimal compared to the risk
X-rays, Dr. Gofman does not depreciate the effect of non-radiation risk
factors. He states, "It is safe to say that multiple causes
(perhaps always) contribute to a SINGLE CASE of fatal cancer. The
case would not occur when it does, without co-action by multiple
by "any reasonable standard of biomedical proof" why there is no safe
of X- ray exposure and why the "safe-dose claim is a fallacy."
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
of a rad" of X-rays.
can read Chapter 45 of Preventing Breast Cancer (web address in the
paragraph) and still maintain the "safe-dose" claim.
levels of ionizing radiation or X-rays produced more cancer than was
One tenth the dose did not produce one tenth as much cancer, but more
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
No one wants
to face the total cumulative effect of X-ray examinations. Dr.
research begs the question, "Are doctors, chiropractors, and dentists
use X-rays, CT scans, and fluoriscopy, without telling patients of the
risk, without recording dosage or considering past exposure, any less
than cigarette companies who knew the harmful effect of
It was the
(unknowingly) calling the pot black" for doctors who used X-rays
to condemn cigarette companies. Will such doctors now be less
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
This is not the
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
Although the dosage
of many X-ray procedures have been lowered, there are new X-ray tests
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
not enough concern for how much exposure or how many X-ray
their patients receive. If this were not true, radiologists, doctors,
and dentists would know and always record the dosage. They would take a
history of past exposure and consider this before using any medical
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
the public needs to know the harmful effects of current medical
Should we protect
the reputation of modern medicine by ignoring the X-ray/cancer
"Silence," Gofman says, "would contribute to the harm of millions of
Why even look for
a breast cancer cure if we fail to recognize an indisputable major
- 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 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
men would still be a landmark scientific achievement. (The
section, alone, of cited peer review articles from scientific
fills 31 pages of small type.) It was produced by Gofman after he
was 75 years old!
authored many books and more than a hundred articles in scientific
More than that
of any other, it was research by Gofman that brought an end to
Plowshare (the so-called "peaceful uses of atomic energy" which called
for licencing 1000 nuclear power plants, detonating hundreds or
of atomic bombs in the Rocky Mountains to liberate natural gas, and
nuclear explosions to excavate canals and ship harbors). This,
stopping atomic bomb tests, saved more people from cancer than what any
man has ever done. Still, Gofman will not accept a royalty or
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
No one questions that
gamma radiation from the fallout of atomic bombs causes cancer.
cites research that show X-rays are twice as carcinogenic per rad as
rays. If we believe that atomic fallout causes cancer, we must
face the fact that X-rays cause cancer and begin measures to reduce
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
Many will discount
Gofman's latest work without reading it. Most doctors will
that X-rays are harmful but question the percentage of cancers caused
X-rays. Some would rather their patients not know that X-rays
cancer. Others will ignorantly repeat the "safe-dose"
Can we afford to wait until there is a consensus?
will be a very "bitter pill" for modern medicine to swallow.
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
Gofman's research (as no one today questions the connection between
Pain Research Institute
266 East 3200 North
Provo, UT 84604
Web site: http://www.healpain.net
Better Than a Cure for Breast Cancer
by Darrell Stoddard Copyright 2000
that, "multiple causes generally (perhaps always) contribute to a
CASE of fatal cancer. The case would not occur when it does,
co-action by multiple causes." What are some of the other
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
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
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)
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
to lowering the dose of current X-ray procedures and not wearing a bra,
are there other protective options to reduce cancer risk?
instruments and tests exist which use no ionizing radiation, that are
effective as X-rays.
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
and no X-rays was at least or more sensitive and specific than
which uses X-rays. (See Mammography
-- Is There a Better Way to
Detect Breast Cancer? which
(GI) diagnostic tests not only subject patients to large doses of
but require them to drink a radioactive cocktail or take a barium enema
as well. Chinese scientists have developed instrumentation
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
Chinese instrument or method. There was no interest.
procedures (X-ray, CT Scan and fluoroscopy) used for determining the
of non broken-bone pain, are largely futile because pain is the
or suppression of endogenous electrical signals between cells --which
not be seen by any imaging device. The Chinese call this the
of Chi." Fortunately, in spite of what nearly everyone believes,
pain and "Chi" can be measured non-invasively with simple electronic
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.)
an oral surgeon, provides the following cancer information: "All
local anesthetics currently approved for use in the United States
mepivacaine, bupivacaine, procaine, etc.) are broken down in the body
anilines. The FDA did studies to determine if the breakdown of
anesthetics to anilines is correct, and in 1993, demonstrated that
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%,
prostate cancer, brain cancer, leukemia, sarcomas, carcinomas, and, in
fact, pretty much the whole spectrum of recognized cancers. The
(2,6-xylidine) is one of the carcinogenic chemical components of
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:
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
Report on Carcinogens states that local anesthetics fulfill the
for listing as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" and
FDA now requires a cancer warning in the package inserts of new
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,
of these pharmaceuticals would be dependent on considerations of risk
benefit." How can a doctor or dentist make that decision if he
not know the danger? Most doctors and dentists do not.
and dentistry can be done, or endured without local anesthesia.
much better it would be if the doctor knew and patients were given a
of whether or not to receive local anesthetics (or X-rays) that may
Is there is a Better Way to Detect Breast
by Darrell Stoddard, copyright 2000
interest those concerned with breast cancer to know there is another
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
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
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
three cancers that were missed by mammography. This was not
significant but very significant for those three women.
cancer detection does not subject the patient to ionizing radiation
For this reason the test could be done every month in high risk
Mammography can not be repeated that often because of the
Many women develop
breast cancer that grows fast enough between mammograms to require a
to detect breast cancer is not widely available. Why is this safe
and better method of detecting breast cancer not being utilized?
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
training. There is also the element of "protecting ones
Oncologists and Radiologists, who are the cancer experts, will not
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
that might turn out to be malignant. Last, it is a question of
economics - expensive mammography instruments must be paid for
though infrared breast scanning systems cost less. For these
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
breast cancer than mammography, he replied, "That's bull shit!" I
showed him a copy of the Infrared Light Scanning of the Breast study
told him it was a blind study of 700 high risk women done in a U.S.
school and published in an AMA Journal. He then repeated, "It's
bull shit." He then made it clear that this was the end of the
So much for new cancer discoveries being accepted.
there is a better way to detect breast cancer, it is infinitely more
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
save women from a horrible disease and death is being ignored, or
the same as the infrared study. The major battles in the "war on
cancer" have been won but unfortunately they are not politically
Summary of vital
is a better way to
detect breast cancer than mammography.
83 percent and 90
percent of all breast cancer can be
attributed to medical radiation (X- rays)."
more of all types of
cancer and "60% of the death rate
from heart disease is also X-ray induced!"
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!
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."
1 cc of 2%
lidocaine will result in the same aniline
dose as smoking 94,000 unfiltered cigarettes!"
of the "Infrared Light Scanning of the Breast" cancer study, and
related information will
sent if requested. (Please include $3.00 for postage and copying.):
Darrell Stoddard, Founder - Pain
266 East 3200 North, Provo, UT 84604 U.S.A.
Web site: http://www.healpain.net
Don't forget to Bookmark this
Return to Homepage of The Pain