Better Than a Cure for Breast Cancer
Is Knowing the Cause and How
to Prevent It
by Darrell Stoddard
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
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
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.
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
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
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:
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!
authored many books and more than a hundred articles in scientific peer-review
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
Pain Research Institute
266 East 3200 North
Provo, UT 84604 U.S.A.
Web site: http://www.healpain.net
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
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
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
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:
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
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.
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
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
cc of 2% lidocaine will result in the same aniline dose as smoking 94,000
*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
266 East 3200 North, Provo, UT 84604 U.S.A.
Web site: http://www.healpain.net
Don't forget to Bookmark this page
to Homepage of The Pain Research Institute