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: 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
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: http://www.healpain.net
E-mail: stoddard@healpain.net
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:
http://www.garynull.com
/Documents/AnilineToxicity Letter.htm
and
http://www.garynull.com/Documents/ToxicAnesthetics.htm)
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.
Mammography
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: stoddard@healpain.net
Web site: http://www.healpain.net
Don't forget to Bookmark this
page
Return to Homepage of The Pain
Research Institute