Resistance
to New Ideas:

by John W. Gofman 

In the early 1950s, I had a visit in our lab from Professor Sir Howard Florey of Oxford University, a co-winner of  the Nobel Award for the discovery of the use of penicillin.  Dr. Florey wanted to arrange to have Dr. Gervase Mills of his staff spend several months in our laboratory to learn ultracentrifuge lipoprotein techniques. 

In commiserating about the resistance to new ideas, Professor Florey said (as nearly as I can recall his words): 

"Let me tell you about a good one ...On the wall above my desk is a framed copy of a letter from the Surgeon- General of the U.S. Army during World War Two.  We had offered to share our limited supply of penicillin with the U.S. Army, in appreciation for your country's participation in the  war.  The Surgeon-General's letter was instructing field offices that under no circumstances should  this new stuff called penicillin be used in the treatment of any United States' military casualties!" 

And Professor Florey added, "So I know something about resistance to new ideas." 

( Penicillin was discovered by Sir Howard Florey and Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928.  The U.S. entered World War Two in 1941.  Fleming and Florey received the Nobel Prize for penicillin in 1945.  It took 17 years before penicillin was widely accepted.) 
 
 

*  *  *  *  * 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 

Cancer and Heart Disease Alert!

 A Major Cause of Cancer and Heart Disease Your Doctor, Dentist, or Chiropractor Does Not Want You To Know

by Darrell Stoddard   Copyright 2001 

"At every crossroads to the future, there are a thousand self-appointed guardians of the past" -- Betty MacQuitty 

John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Molecular and Cell Biology, who has saved thousands if not millions of people from cancer, has identified the major cause of most cancer (and also heart disease).  Gofman sent his new research to 61 cancer organizations.  Not one of them even acknowledged receipt.  It is a disgrace to pour billions of dollars into cancer research when such institutions will not recognize or even respond to a discovery by one of the world's foremost scientists.

It was John Gofman's earlier research as biomedical director and associate director of the Atomic Energy Commission's Livermore National Laboratory, that helped to end plans for licensing 1,000 civilian nuclear power plants in the United States and to stop "Operation Plowshare" which would have detonated hundreds or thousands of atomic bombs in the Rocky Mountains to liberate natural gas and, elsewhere, to blast out ship harbors and excavate canals with nuclear explosions.

Gofman estimated in 1970 that chronic exposure of the civilian population to the legally "permissible" dose of ionizing radiation from atomic bomb testing would result in 16 to 32 thousand cancer deaths per year (based mostly on evidence from Hiroshima-Nagasaki survivors).  In 1990, Gofman produced the first demonstration that there is no safe (risk-free) level of exposure to ionizing radiation -- a conclusion emphatically shared in 1995 by Britain's National Radiological Protection Board. 

The cessation of atomic bomb testing, and stopping "Operation Plowshare" with the planned plutonium economy, saved thousands and possibly millions of people from cancer and death.  Not since Semmelweis, Lister, Jenner,  or Salk have more lives been saved. 

Two monumental new studies by Gofman (1996, 1999 that do not share the same methods or data) both find that in the United States, ionizing radiation from medical X-rays is a necessary co-actor causing most breast cancer (between 75 and 90% of cases).  The 1999 study finds that medical X-rays are a necessary co-actor also in over 50% of all other types of cancer, and 60% of coronary artery disease.  Both of the new studies have been ignored by editors of leading medical journals and cancer organizations.  Press releases about the studies, issued by the University of California, have also been ignored by the media.  Was Gofman a credible scientist before, but not now?  What is the difference?

Why will you likely never learn about Gofman's research from a cancer organization? Gofman's studies divert attention from their own research.  Why publicize the discoveries of someone else?  If the cause of most cancer were recognized and the way to prevent it known, there would be less need to donate for cancer research.  Funding would decline or cease.  Because of belief in the importance of their work, it is difficult for cancer scientists to believe anything that could end the need for their dedicated search. 

Why do medical journals and nearly all medical doctors who use X-rays ignore Gofman's research?  No one wants to face the fact that doctors cause cancer - in the past or present.  Doctors do not want to be constrained in how they practice medicine or have their judgment questioned when they order X-rays.  X-rays are necessary to protect doctors from lawsuits so more X-rays are performed instead of less with no limits placed on how many X-rays are given.  Most patients will not confront those who order or perform X-rays because the patients do not want to alienate themselves from their doctors.

The media will not mention Gofman's research because it does not come from a medical journal or cancer organization.  Those who produce the news do not want  to provoke doctors who use X-rays.  If the media does consult a cancer expert or doctor about how much cancer is caused by medical X-rays, they get a biased opinion (denial) from someone who has never examined Gofman's work.  The opinion carries more weight than 1123 pages of comprehensive, documented research from one of the world's foremost scientists.  As a result nothing is published and nothing is broadcast.

Meanwhile each year in the United States 180,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 44,000 will die from the disease.  The incidence of breast cancer 50 years ago was 1 in 30, today it is 1 in 8.  This year more than 600 high risk women in the U.S., who do not have breast cancer, will have their breasts removed to prevent the disease, because no one tells them what else can be done!

Are we more concerned about not upsetting doctors who use X-rays than we are about saving people from cancer?  Clearly we are.  It seems modern medicine is a "sacred cow" that cannot be criticized.  The paradox of the denial is that doctors and X-ray technicians know X-rays cause cancer - evidenced by how they protect themselves when X-ray examinations are given.

Gofman's research could save countless people from a horrible death if we can face the hard truth.  Admitting that between 1920 and 1960, X-rays were used not to diagnose but to treat many conditions X-rays should not have been used for, would be a beginning.  Listing X-ray exposure as a risk factor would be the next step.  Then we must ask, "Are patients still being exposed to more x-radiation than is necessary?"  The answer is an unqualified "YES."  Gofman shows how X-ray exposure could easily be cut in half without buying new equipment, without compromising the quality of health care, and without the loss of necessary medical information.  An estimated 120,000 lives could be saved each year in the United States by cutting X-ray doses in half (forty times more lives than were lost in the September 11th terrorist attack on the World Trade Center).

Progress in the war on cancer cannot be made until someone will publish or broadcast this dominant cause of cancer - even when the finger points to modern medicine.  You could be among the first to make the new research by John Gofman known and do something about it. 

FIRST, tell as many others as possible and send the review of Gofman's research "Better Than a Cure for Breast Cancer" (see reference below) to your friends.
SECOND, take or send a copy to your local newspaper, radio or  TV station. 
THIRD, do not accept a defensive opinion from a doctor or X-ray technician who has never examined Gofman's research More important than what such people know is what they do not want to know.  See Gofman's research if you are told the radiation is no more than you would receive from a day in the sun or from taking a trip in an airplane. 
FOURTH, Refuse unnecessary X-rays and X-rays that will not change how you are going to be treated, especially if the doctor or X-ray technician refuses to stand next to you when the X-rays are given. 
FIFTH, Insist that the radiation exposure of every X-ray procedure you receive is known and recorded as a permanent part of your medical record.
Sixth, Refuse dental X-rays unless they are digital (no lead apron and the tech does not leave the room).
It took the FDA more than thirty years to even acknowledge that folic acid prevents neural tube birth defects.  Thousands of deformed babies were born because the FDA prohibited claims that pregnant women should take folic acid.  Now it is accepted and widely publicized.  Should we wait for loved ones to suffer and die unnecessarily with cancer?

Darrell Stoddard, Founder - Pain Research Institute, 266 East 3200 North, Provo, UT 84604  U.S.A. 
Phone: 801-377-3891   Website: http://www.healpain.net     Email: [email protected]

For more information and a review of Gofman's research, see: 
Better Than a Cure for Breast Cancer  and 
A Compelling Reason Why Medical X-rays Are A Major Cause of Cancer on this web site: 
You can also read an executive summary of Gofman's research at:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/.
See also http://www.x-raysandhealth.org

For more breast cancer research  -  what every woman, even those who have received numerous X-rays, can do now to prevent the disease, see on this web site:
Could Bra-Wearing Increase the Incidence of Breast Cancer?

Far more important than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know -- Eric Hoffer

Don't forget to Bookmark this page.
Return to Homepage of the Pain Research Institute  -  http://www.healpain.net