Why Mammography Is Unscientific And Harmful

Why Mammography Is Unscientific And Harmful

Getting a mammogram seems like a "no-brainer." The diagnostic test detects, by emitting allegedly harmless ionizing radiation, breast cancer early, thus it prevents the premature demise of the patient. Yet, many solid scientific facts invalidate these, on the surface, seemingly legitimate, highly plausible notions or claims about the value of mammography.

Some "Inconvenient" Facts Women Should Know About Mammography

"The interaction with the unaccountable, self-regulating business called "modern medicine" is analogous to buying a used car from a stranger: you never really know what you're getting because of the things you're not being told. And what is not being disclosed can (seriously) hurt you."

(Rolf Hefti, in "The Mammogram Myth: The Independent Investigation Of Mammography The Medical Profession Doesn't Want You To Know About", 2013)

Would you (still) have mammograms if you knew that:

● many, if not most, "breast cancers" detected by screening with mammography are non-cancers;

● practically all non-cancers get treated with biopsies, surgery, radiation therapy, and other orthodox cancer treatments. That is, many essentially healthy women receive unnecessary treatments, therefore they get seriously injured -particularly because these treatments frequently induce secondary cancers;

● primary tumors tend to spread (metastasize) predominantly after a person received surgery, radiation or chemo therapy, and early detection of breast cancer by mammography increases the use of these invasive cancer treatments;

● early detection of breast cancer by mammography does not decrease (or only non-significantly) the mortality rate because the orthodox theories on cancer progression, from early to advanced stages, rest on flawed research and erroneous medical dogmas;

● mammography increases total mortality;

● a single mammogram can cause severe, complex DNA damage, the type of genetic injury that increases the risk of (breast) cancer;

● the lowest possible dose of ionizing radiation increases the risk of cancer, and medical x-rays are probably the principal cause of breast cancer;

● ionizing radiation doesn't merely cause genetic defects but induces other damaging, systemic cell-destabilizing disruptions and carcinogenic effects (which, however, are ignored by the medical profession in their assessment of the safety of x-rays);

● the claim that the low radiation exposure from mammograms is a "hypothetical" risk is derived from corrupted raw databases on irradiation (the corruption, i.e., "re-adjustment" of the data, entailed to hide the great toxicity of radiation (at low levels). This allows big corporate entities, such as the medical industry, to claim "officially" that low dose medical x-rays are a small, "speculative" or "negligent" risk);

● the highly influential pro-mammogram research studies that led to the global introduction of mammography are seriously flawed;

● the medical orthodoxy has a long history of denying the various real dangers of mammography and exaggerating the benefits of mammographic screening, respectively;

● an extensive, intricate web of politics, corruption and bias in science research, vested interests, incestuous interrelationships between the cancer industry and government authorities, and sociological factors obfuscate or hide the real facts about mammography from the public at large;

● you have a small chance of receiving a benefit but great odds of getting harmed?

All of the statements above are comprehensively referenced and discussed in my recently released (e)book The Mammogram Myth: The Independent Investigation Of Mammography The Medical Profession Doesn't Want You To Know About.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EJWYG7S

At http://www.TheMammogramMyth.com, I disclose some more compelling details about "The Mammogram Myth".

An (e)book Kindle version of "The Mammogram Myth" is available for purchase, for only $7.99, from Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EJWYG7S (non-affiliate link)

For an (e)book version in multiple formats (e.g., ePub, MOBI, PDF, HTML), at a one-time purchase ($7.99), go to Smashwords at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/344427 (non-affiliate link)

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Excellent information



I was sent to an oncologist after my first mammogram. After another round of films, two needle biopsies and surgical removal of the growth, I was told it was a cyst and that I had fibrocystic breast disease.

After that, every biopsy showed more "suspicious" lumps that were all cysts. I was told that I was at higher risk for breast cancer because of it and that I needed more frequent mammograms.

Perhaps it is a good thing that I didn't have the insurance to follow medical opinion. I have since found out that eliminating caffeine - most especially -diet soda from my diet would eliminate this problem. 

After reading this article, I wonder if the reason women with fibrocystic breast disease have more cancer is because we get more mammograms.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to write a comment