Cancer

The goal of screening exams for early breast cancer detection is to find cancers before they start to cause symptoms. Screening refers to tests and exams used to find a disease, such as cancer, in people who do not have any symptoms. Early detection means using an approach that allows earlier diagnosis of breast cancer than otherwise might have occurred.

Breast cancers that are found because they are causing symptoms tend to be larger and are more likely to have already spread beyond the breast. In contrast, breast cancers found during screening exams are more likely to be smaller and still confined to the breast. The size of a breast cancer and how far it has spread are some of the most important factors in predicting the prognosis (outlook) of a woman with this disease.

Most doctors feel that early detection tests for breast cancer save many thousands of lives each year, and that many more lives could be saved if even more women and their health care providers took advantage of these tests. Following the American Cancer Society's guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer improves the chances that breast cancer can be diagnosed at an early stage and treated successfully.

What are the risk factors for breast cancer?

A risk factor is anything that affects your chance of getting a disease, such as cancer. Different cancers have different risk factors. For example, exposing skin to strong sunlight is a risk factor for skin cancer. Smoking is a risk factor for cancers of the lung, mouth, larynx (voice box), bladder, kidney, and several other organs.

But risk factors don't tell us everything. Having a risk factor, or even several, does not mean that you will get the disease. Most women who have one or more breast cancer risk factors never develop the disease, while many women with breast cancer have no apparent risk factors (other than being a woman and growing older). Even when a woman with risk factors develops breast cancer, it is hard to know just how much these factors may have contributed to her cancer.

There are different kinds of risk factors. Some factors, like a person's age or race, can't be changed. Others are linked to cancer-causing factors in the environment. Still others are related to personal behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and diet. Some factors influence risk more than others, and your risk for breast cancer can change over time, due to factors such as aging or lifestyle changes.

Risk factors you cannot change

Gender

Simply being a woman is the main risk factor for developing breast cancer. Although women have many more breast cells than men, the main reason they develop more breast cancer is because their breast cells are constantly exposed to the growth-promoting effects of the female hormones estrogen and progesterone. Men can develop breast cancer, but this disease is about 100 times more common among women than men.

Aging

Your risk of developing breast cancer increases as you get older. About 1 out of 8 invasive breast cancers are found in women younger than 45, while about 2 out of 3 invasive breast cancers are found in women age 55 or older.

Genetic risk factors

About 5% to 10% of breast cancer cases are thought to be hereditary, resulting directly from gene defects (called mutations) inherited from a parent.

BRCA1 and BRCA2: The most common cause of hereditary breast cancer is an inherited mutation in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. In normal cells, these genes help prevent cancer by making proteins that help keep the cells from growing abnormally. If you have inherited a mutated copy of either gene from a parent, you have a high risk of developing breast cancer during your lifetime.

The risk may be as high as 80% for members of some families with BRCA mutations. These cancers tend to occur in younger women and are more often bilateral (in both breasts) than cancers in women who are not born with one of these gene mutations. Women with these inherited mutations also have an increased risk for developing other cancers, particularly ovarian cancer.

Although in the U.S., BRCA mutations are found most often in Jewish women of Ashkenazi (Eastern Europe) origin, they can occur in any racial or ethnic group.

Changes in other genes: Other gene mutations can also lead to inherited breast cancers. These genes mutations are much rarer and often do not increase the risk of breast cancer as much as the BRCA genes. They are not frequent causes of inherited breast cancer.

• ATM: The ATM gene normally helps repair damaged DNA. Inheriting 2 abnormal copies of this gene causes the disease ataxia-telangiectasia. Inheriting one mutated copy of this gene has been linked to a high rate of breast cancer in some families.

• p53: Inherited mutations of the p53 tumor suppressor gene cause the Li-Fraumeni syndrome (named after the 2 researchers who first described it). People with this syndrome have an increased risk of breast cancer, as well as several other cancers such as leukemia, brain tumors, and sarcomas (cancer of bones or connective tissue). This is a rare cause of breast cancer.

• CHEK2: The Li-Fraumeni syndrome can also be caused by inherited mutations in the CHEK2 gene. Even when it does not cause this syndrome, it can increase breast cancer risk about twofold when it is mutated.

• PTEN: The PTEN gene normally helps regulate cell growth. Inherited mutations in this gene cause Cowden syndrome, a rare disorder in which people are at increased risk for both benign and malignant breast tumors, as well as growths in the digestive tract, thyroid, uterus, and ovaries.

• CDH1: Inherited mutations in this gene cause hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, a syndrome in which people develop a rare type of stomach cancer at an early age. Women with mutations in this gene also have an increased risk of invasive lobular breast cancer.

Genetic testing: Genetic testing can be done to look for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (or less commonly in other genes such as PTEN or p53). Although testing may be helpful in some situations, the pros and cons need to be considered carefully.

If you are considering genetic testing, it is strongly recommended that first you talk to a genetic counselor, nurse, or doctor qualified to explain and interpret the results of these tests. It is very important to understand what genetic testing can and can't tell you, and to carefully weigh the benefits and risks of genetic testing before these tests are done. Testing is expensive and may not be covered by some health insurance plans.

For more information, see the American Cancer Society document, Genetic Testing: What You Need to Know. You may also want to visit the National Cancer Institute Web site (www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/Genetic-Testing-for-Breast-and-Ovarian-Cancer-Risk).

Family history of breast cancer

Women whose close blood relatives have breast cancer have a higher risk for this disease.

Having a first-degree relative (mother, sister, or daughter) with breast cancer almost doubles a woman's risk. Having 2 first-degree relatives increases her risk about 5-fold.

Although the exact risk is not known, women with a family history of breast cancer in a father or brother also have an increased risk of breast cancer. Overall, about 20% to 30% of women with breast cancer have a family member with this disease. This means that most (70% to 80%) women who get breast cancer do not have a family history of this disease.

Personal history of breast cancer

A woman with cancer in one breast has a 3- to 4-fold increased risk of developing a new cancer in the other breast or in another part of the same breast. This is different from a recurrence (return) of the first cancer.

Race and ethnicity

White women are slightly more likely to develop breast cancer than are African-American women. However, African-American women are more likely to die of this cancer. At least part of this seems to be because African-American women tend to have more aggressive tumors, although the reasons for this are not known. Asian, Hispanic, and Native American women have a lower risk of developing and dying from breast cancer.

Dense breast tissue

Women with denser breast tissue (as seen on a mammogram) have more glandular tissue and less fatty tissue, and have a higher risk of breast cancer. Unfortunately, dense breast tissue can also make it harder for doctors to spot problems on mammograms.

Certain benign breast conditions

Women diagnosed with certain benign breast conditions may have an increased risk of breast cancer. Some of these conditions are more closely linked to breast cancer risk than others. Doctors often divide benign breast conditions into 3 general groups, depending on how they affect this risk.

Non-proliferative lesions: These conditions are not associated with overgrowth of breast tissue. They do not seem to affect breast cancer risk, or if they do it is to a very small extent. They include:

• fibrocystic disease (fibrosis and/or cysts)
• mild hyperplasia
• adenosis (non-sclerosing)
• simple fibroadenoma
• phyllodes tumor (benign)
• a single papilloma
• fat necrosis
• mastitis
• duct ectasia
• other benign tumors (lipoma, hamartoma, hemangioma, neurofibroma)

Proliferative lesions without atypia: These conditions show excessive growth of cells in the ducts or lobules of the breast tissue. They seem to raise a woman's risk of breast cancer slightly (1 ½ to 2 times normal). They include:

• usual ductal hyperplasia (without atypia)
• complex fibroadenoma
• sclerosing adenosis
• several papillomas or papillomatosis
• radial scar

Proliferative lesions with atypia: In these conditions, there is excessive growth of cells in the ducts or lobules of the breast tissue, and the cells no longer appear normal. They have a stronger effect on breast cancer risk, raising it 4 to 5 times higher than normal. They include:

• atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH)
• atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH)

Women with a family history of breast cancer and either hyperplasia or atypical hyperplasia have an even higher risk of developing a breast cancer.

For more information on these conditions, see the separate American Cancer Society document, Non-cancerous Breast Conditions.

Lobular carcinoma in situ

Women with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) have a 7 -to 11-fold increased risk of developing cancer in either breast.

Menstrual periods

Women who have had more menstrual cycles because they started menstruating at an early age (before age 12) and/or went through menopause at a later age (after age 55) have a slightly higher risk of breast cancer. This may be related to a higher lifetime exposure to the hormones estrogen and progesterone.

Previous chest radiation

Women who as children or young adults had radiation therapy to the chest area as treatment for another cancer (such as Hodgkin disease or non-Hodgkin lymphoma) are at significantly increased risk for breast cancer. This varies with the patient's age when they got the radiation. If chemotherapy was also given, it may have stopped ovarian hormone production for some time, lowering the risk.. The risk of developing breast cancer from chest radiation is highest if the radiation was given during adolescence, when the breasts were still developing. Radiation treatment after age 40 does not seem to increase breast cancer risk.

Diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure

From the 1940s through the early 1970s some pregnant women were given an estrogen-like drug called DES because it was thought to lower their chances of losing the baby (miscarriage). These women have a slightly increased risk of developing breast cancer. Women whose mothers took DES during pregnancy may also have a slightly higher risk of breast cancer. For more information on DES see the separate American Cancer Society document, DES Exposure: Questions and Answers.

Lifestyle-related factors

Not having children, or having them later in life

Women who have not had children or who had their first child after age 30 have a slightly higher breast cancer risk. Having many pregnancies and becoming pregnant at an early age reduces breast cancer risk. Pregnancy reduces a woman's total number of lifetime menstrual cycles, which may be the reason for this effect.

Recent oral contraceptive use

Studies have found that women using oral contraceptives (birth control pills) have a slightly greater risk of breast cancer than women who have never used them. Over time, this risk seems to go back to normal once the pills are stopped. Women who stopped using oral contraceptives more than 10 years ago do not appear to have any increased breast cancer risk. When thinking about using oral contraceptives, women should discuss their other risk factors for breast cancer with their health care team.

Post-menopausal hormone therapy (PHT)

Post-menopausal hormone therapy, also known as hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), has been used for many years to help relieve symptoms of menopause and to help prevent osteoporosis (thinning of the bones). Earlier studies suggested it might have other health benefits as well, but those benefits have not been found in more recent, better designed studies.

There are 2 main types of PHT. For women who still have a uterus (womb), doctors generally prescribe estrogen and progesterone (known as combined PHT). Because estrogen alone can increase the risk of cancer of the uterus, progesterone is added to help prevent this. For women who've had a hysterectomy (those who no longer have a uterus), estrogen alone can be prescribed. This is commonly known as estrogen replacement therapy (ERT).

Combined PHT: Use of combined post-menopausal hormone therapy increases the risk of getting breast cancer. It may also increase the chances of dying from breast cancer. This increase in risk can be seen with as little as 2 years of use. Large studies have found that there is an increased risk of breast cancer related to the use of combined PHT. Combined PHT also increases the likelihood that the cancer may be found at a more advanced stage, possibly because it reduces the effectiveness of mammograms.

The increased risk from combined PHT appears to apply only to current and recent users. A woman's breast cancer risk seems to return to that of the general population within 5 years of stopping combined PHT.

ERT: The use of estrogen alone after menopause does not appear to increase the risk of developing breast cancer significantly, if at all. But when used long term (for more than 10 years), ERT has been found to increase the risk of ovarian and breast cancer in some studies.

At this time there appear to be few strong reasons to use post-menopausal hormone therapy (combined PHT or ERT), other than possibly for the short-term relief of menopausal symptoms. Along with the increased risk of breast cancer, combined PHT also appears to increase the risk of heart disease, blood clots, and strokes. It does lower the risk of colorectal cancer and osteoporosis, but this must be weighed against the possible harms, and it should be noted that there are other effective ways to prevent osteoporosis. Although ERT does not seem to have much effect on breast cancer risk, it does increase the risk of stroke. The increased risk of hormone replacement therapy is the same for "bioidentical" and "natural" hormones as it is for synthetic hormones.

The decision to use PHT should be made by a woman and her doctor after weighing the possible risks and benefits (including the severity of her menopausal symptoms), and considering her other risk factors for heart disease, breast cancer, and osteoporosis. If a woman and her doctor decide to try PHT for symptoms of menopause, it is usually best to use it at the lowest dose that works for her and for as short a time as possible.

Not breast-feeding

Some studies suggest that breast-feeding may slightly lower breast cancer risk, especially if it is continued for 1½ to 2 years. But this has been a difficult area to study, especially in countries such as the United States, where breast-feeding for this long is uncommon.

The explanation for this possible effect may be that breast-feeding reduces a woman's total number of lifetime menstrual cycles (the same as starting menstrual periods at a later age or going through early menopause).

Alcohol

Consumption of alcohol is clearly linked to an increased risk of developing breast cancer. The risk increases with the amount of alcohol consumed. Compared with non-drinkers, women who consume 1 alcoholic drink a day have a very small increase in risk. Those who have 2 to 5 drinks daily have about 1½ times the risk of women who drink no alcohol. Excessive alcohol use is also known to increase the risk of developing cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, and liver. The American Cancer Society recommends that women limit their alcohol consumption to no more than 1 drink a day.

Being overweight or obese

Being overweight or obese has been found to increase breast cancer risk, especially for women after menopause. Before menopause your ovaries produce most of your estrogen, and fat tissue produces a small amount of estrogen. After menopause (when the ovaries stop making estrogen), most of a woman's estrogen comes from fat tissue. Having more fat tissue after menopause can increase your chance of getting breast cancer by raising estrogen levels.

The connection between weight and breast cancer risk is complex, however. For example, risk appears to be increased for women who gained weight as an adult but may not be increased among those who have been overweight since childhood. Also, excess fat in the waist area may affect risk more than the same amount of fat in the hips and thighs. Researchers believe that fat cells in various parts of the body have subtle differences that may explain this.

The American Cancer Society recommends you maintain a healthy weight throughout your life by balancing your food intake with physical activity and avoiding excessive weight gain.

Lack of physical activity

Evidence is growing that physical activity in the form of exercise reduces breast cancer risk. The main question is how much exercise is needed. In one study from the Women's Health Initiative, as little as 1¼ to 2½ hours per week of brisk walking reduced a woman's risk by 18%. Walking 10 hours a week reduced the risk a little more.

To reduce your risk of breast cancer, the American Cancer Society recommends 45 to 60 minutes of intentional physical activity 5 or more days a week.

Factors with uncertain, controversial, or unproven effect on breast cancer risk

High-fat diets

Studies of fat in the diet have not clearly shown that this is a breast cancer risk factor.

Most studies have found that breast cancer is less common in countries where the typical diet is low in total fat, low in polyunsaturated fat, and low in saturated fat. On the other hand, many studies of women in the United States have not found breast cancer risk to be related to dietary fat intake. Researchers are still not sure how to explain this apparent disagreement. Studies comparing diet and breast cancer risk in different countries are complicated by other differences (such as activity level, intake of other nutrients, and genetic factors) that might also alter breast cancer risk.

More research is needed to better understand the effect of the types of fat eaten on breast cancer risk. But it is clear that calories do count, and fat is a major source of these. High-fat diets can lead to being overweight or obese, which is a breast cancer risk factor. A diet high in fat has also been shown to influence the risk of developing several other types of cancer, and intake of certain types of fat is clearly related to heart disease risk.

The American Cancer Society recommends eating a healthy diet with an emphasis on plant sources. This includes eating 5 or more servings of vegetables and fruits each day, choosing whole grains over those that are processed (refined), and limiting consumption of processed and red meats.

Antiperspirants

Internet e-mail rumors have suggested that chemicals in underarm antiperspirants are absorbed through the skin, interfere with lymph circulation, and cause toxins to build up in the breast, eventually leading to breast cancer. There is very little laboratory or population-based evidence to support this rumor.

One small study has found trace levels of parabens (used as preservatives in antiperspirants and other products), which have weak estrogen-like properties, in a small sample of breast cancer tumors. However, the study did not look at whether parabens caused the tumors. This was a preliminary finding, and more research is needed to determine what effect, if any, parabens may have on breast cancer risk. On the other hand, a large population-based study found no increase in breast cancer in women who used underarm antiperspirants and/or shaved their underarms.

Bras

Internet e-mail rumors and at least one book have suggested that bras cause breast cancer by obstructing lymph flow. There is no good scientific or clinical basis for this claim. Women who do not wear bras regularly are more likely to be thinner, which would probably contribute to any perceived difference in risk.

Induced abortion

Several studies have provided very strong data that neither induced abortions nor spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) have an overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. For more detailed information, see the separate American Cancer Society document, Is Having an Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?

Breast implants

Several studies have found that breast implants do not increase breast cancer risk, although silicone breast implants can cause scar tissue to form in the breast. Implants make it harder to see breast tissue on standard mammograms, but additional x-ray pictures called implant displacement views can be used to examine the breast tissue more completely.

Chemicals in the environment

A great deal of research has been reported and more is being done to understand possible environmental influences on breast cancer risk.

Of special interest are compounds in the environment that have been found in lab studies to have estrogen-like properties, which could in theory affect breast cancer risk. For example, substances found in some plastics, certain cosmetics and personal care products, pesticides, and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) seem to have such properties.

Although this issue understandably invokes a great deal of public concern, at this time research does not show a clear link between breast cancer risk and exposure to these substances. Unfortunately, studying such effects in humans is difficult. More research is needed to better define the possible health effects of these and similar substances.

Tobacco smoke

Most studies have found no link between cigarette smoking and breast cancer. Although some studies have suggested smoking increases the risk of breast cancer, this remains controversial.

An active focus of research is whether secondhand smoke increases the risk of breast cancer. Both mainstream and secondhand smoke contain chemicals that, in high concentrations, cause breast cancer in rodents. Chemicals in tobacco smoke reach breast tissue and are found in breast milk.

The evidence on secondhand smoke and breast cancer risk in human studies is controversial, at least in part because smokers have not been shown to be at increased risk. One possible explanation for this is that tobacco smoke may have different effects on breast cancer risk in smokers compared to those who are just exposed to secondhand smoke.

A report from the California Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 concluded that the evidence about secondhand smoke and breast cancer is "consistent with a causal association" in younger, mainly pre-menopausal women. The 2006 US Surgeon General's report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, concluded that there is "suggestive but not sufficient" evidence of a link at this point. In any case, this possible link to breast cancer is yet another reason to avoid secondhand smoke.

Night work

Several studies have suggested that women who work at night, such as nurses on night shift, may have an increased risk of developing breast cancer. This is a fairly recent finding, and more studies are looking at this issue. Some researchers think the effect may be due to changes in levels of melatonin, a hormone whose production is affected by the body's exposure to light, but other hormones are also being studied.

American Cancer Society recommendations for early breast cancer detection in women without breast symptoms

Women age 40 and older should have a mammogram every year and should continue to do so for as long as they are in good health.

• Current evidence supporting mammograms is even stronger than in the past. In particular, recent evidence has confirmed that mammograms offer substantial benefit for women in their 40s. Women can feel confident about the benefits associated with regular mammograms for finding cancer early. However, mammograms also have limitations. A mammogram can miss some cancers, and it may lead to follow up of findings that are not cancer.

• Women should be told about the benefits and limitations linked with yearly mammograms. But despite their limitations, mammograms are still a very effective and valuable tool for decreasing suffering and death from breast cancer.

• Mammograms should be continued regardless of a woman's age, as long as she does not have serious, chronic health problems such as congestive heart failure, end-stage renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and moderate to severe dementia. Age alone should not be the reason to stop having regular mammograms. Women with serious health problems or short life expectancies should discuss with their doctors whether to continue having mammograms.

Women in their 20s and 30s should have a clinical breast exam (CBE) as part of a periodic (regular) health exam by a health professional preferably every 3 years. Starting at age 40, women should have a CBE by a health professional every year.

• CBE is done along with mammograms and offers a chance for women and their doctor or nurse to discuss changes in their breasts, early detection testing, and factors in the woman's history that might make her more likely to have breast cancer.

• There may be some benefit in having the CBE shortly before the mammogram. The exam should include instruction for the purpose of getting more familiar with your own breasts. Women should also be given information about the benefits and limitations of CBE and breast self-examination (BSE). The chance of breast cancer occurring is very low for women in their 20s and gradually increases with age. Women should be told to promptly report any new breast symptoms to a health professional.

Breast self-examination (BSE) is an option for women starting in their 20s. Women should be told about the benefits and limitations of BSE. Women should report any breast changes to their health professional right away.

• Research has shown that BSE plays a small role in finding breast cancer compared with finding a breast lump by chance or simply being aware of what is normal for each woman. Some women feel very comfortable doing BSE regularly (usually monthly after their period) which involves a systematic step-by-step approach to examining the look and feel of one's breasts. Other women are more comfortable simply feeling their breasts in a less systematic approach, such as while showering or getting dressed or doing an occasional thorough exam. Sometimes, women are so concerned about "doing it right" that they become stressed over the technique. Doing BSE regularly is one way for women to know how their breasts normally look and feel and to notice any changes. The goal, with or without BSE, is to report any breast changes to a doctor or nurse right away.

• Women who choose to use a step-by-step approach to BSE should have their BSE technique reviewed during their physical exam by a health professional. It is okay for women to choose not to do BSE or not to do it on a regular schedule such as once every month. However, by doing the exam regularly, you get to know how your breasts normally look and feel and you can more readily find any changes. If a change occurs, such as development of a lump or swelling, skin irritation or dimpling, nipple pain or retraction (turning inward), redness or scaliness of the nipple or breast skin, or a discharge other than breast milk (such as staining of your sheets or bra), you should see your health care professional as soon as possible for evaluation. Remember that most of the time, however, these breast changes are not cancer.

Women at high risk (greater than 20% lifetime risk) should get an MRI and a mammogram every year. Women at moderately increased risk (15% to 20% lifetime risk) should talk with their doctors about the benefits and limitations of adding MRI screening to their yearly mammogram. Yearly MRI screening is not recommended for women whose lifetime risk of breast cancer is less than 15%.

Women at high risk include those who:

• have a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation

• have a first-degree relative (parent, brother, sister, or child) with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation, and have not had genetic testing themselves

• have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 20% to 25% or greater, according to risk assessment tools that are based mainly on family history (see below)

• had radiation therapy to the chest when they were between the ages of 10 and 30 years

• have Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Cowden syndrome, or Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome, or have one of these syndromes in first-degree relatives

Women at moderately increased risk include those who:

• have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 15% to 20%, according to risk assessment tools that are based mainly on family history (see below)

• have a personal history of breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), or atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH)

• have extremely dense breasts or unevenly dense breasts when viewed by mammograms

If MRI is used, it should be in addition to, not instead of, a screening mammogram. This is because although an MRI is a more sensitive test (it's more likely to detect cancer than a mammogram), it may still miss some cancers that a mammogram would detect.

For most women at high risk, screening with MRI and mammograms should begin at age 30 years and continue for as long as a woman is in good health. But because the evidence is limited regarding the best age at which to start screening, this decision should be based on shared decision-making between patients and their health care providers, taking into account personal circumstances and preferences.

Several risk assessment tools, with names such as the Gail model, the Claus model, and the Tyrer-Cuzick model, are available to help health professionals estimate a woman's breast cancer risk. These tools give approximate, rather than precise, estimates of breast cancer risk based on different combinations of risk factors and different data sets. As a result, they may give different risk estimates for the same woman. Their results should be discussed by a woman and her doctor when being used to decide whether to start MRI screening.

It is recommended that women who get a screening MRI do so at a facility that can do an MRI-guided breast biopsy at the same time if needed. Otherwise, the woman will have to have a second MRI exam at another facility when she has the biopsy.

There is no evidence right now that MRI will be an effective screening tool for women at average risk. While MRI is more sensitive than mammograms, it also has a higher false-positive rate (it is more likely to find something that turns out not to be cancer). This would lead to unneeded biopsies and other tests in many of the women screened.

The American Cancer Society believes the use of mammograms, MRI (in women at high risk), clinical breast exams, and finding and reporting breast changes early, according to the recommendations outlined above, offers women the best chance to reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer. This approach is clearly better than any one exam or test alone. Without question, a physical exam of the breast without a mammogram would miss the opportunity to detect many breast cancers that are too small for a woman or her doctor to feel but can be seen on mammograms. Mammograms are a sensitive screening method, but a small percentage of breast cancers do not show up on mammograms but can be felt by a woman or her doctors. For women at high risk of breast cancer, such as those with BRCA gene mutations or a strong family history, both MRI and mammogram exams of the breast are recommended.

Mammograms

A mammogram is an x-ray of the breast. A diagnostic mammogram is used to diagnose breast disease in women who have breast symptoms or an abnormal result on a screening mammogram. Screening mammograms are used to look for breast disease in women who are asymptomatic; that is, those who appear to have no breast problems. Screening mammograms usually take 2 views (x-ray pictures taken from different angles) of each breast. Women who are breast-feeding can still get mammograms, although these are probably not quite as accurate because the breast tissue tends to be dense.

For some women, such as those with breast implants (for augmentation or as reconstruction after mastectomy), additional pictures may be needed to include as much breast tissue as possible. Breast implants make it harder to see breast tissue on standard mammograms, but additional x-ray pictures with implant displacement and compression views can be used to more completely examine the breast tissue. If you have implants, it is important that you have your mammograms done by someone skilled in the techniques used for women with implants.

Although breast x-rays have been performed for more than 70 years, modern mammography has only existed since 1969. That was the first year x-ray units dedicated to breast imaging were available. Modern mammogram equipment designed for breast x-rays uses very low levels of radiation, usually about a 0.1 to 0.2 rad dose per x-ray (a rad is a measure of radiation dose).

Strict guidelines ensure that mammogram equipment is safe and uses the lowest dose of radiation possible. Many people are concerned about the exposure to x-rays, but the level of radiation used in modern mammograms does not significantly increase the risk for breast cancer.

To put dose into perspective, a woman who receives radiation as a treatment for breast cancer will receive several thousand rads. If she had yearly mammograms beginning at age 40 and continuing until she was 90, she will have received 20 to 40 rads. As another example, flying from New York to California on a commercial jet exposes a woman to roughly the same amount of radiation as one mammogram.

For a mammogram, the breast is compressed between 2 plates to flatten and spread the tissue. Although this may be uncomfortable for a moment, it is necessary to produce a good, readable mammogram. The compression only lasts a few seconds. The entire procedure for a screening mammogram takes about 20 minutes.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal types of cancers because the pancreas produces some of the enzymes needed to battle the disease such as trypsin and other proteolytic enzymes that digest meat proteins in the GI tract, and erode the unique protein coat that surrounds cancer cells. This cancer cell protein coat presents a negative electrical charge around the cell that hides / protects the diseased cell against the body's own (also negatively charged) T-blood cells that normally destroy foreign infectious agents and diseased cells--instead the cancer and T-blood cells repel one another due to "like charges repelling." The pancreas is a vital organ that creates and maintains levels of the vital hormone insulin that controls the metabolic system of the body--maintaining blood sugar levels otherwise you would have diabetes.

It is possible to take proteolytic enzymes, HCl stomach acid, and pepsin supplements from a health food store or pharmacy that will assist you in properly digesting your food (vitamins, minerals, and nutrients) to maintain your strength while your pancreas is under attack from disease. In all anti-cancer diets, low (no) meat protein intake is done to prevent the overburdening of what few proteolytic enzymes are produced by the pancreas so that its natural actions can be fully directed at fighting cancer instead of digesting meat in your GI tract.

See >chemotherapy cytotoxic OR (cell toxic) kills rapid< Chemotherapy involves taking a known cellular toxic substance and injecting it into the bloodstream of the patient. These toxins kill everything at varying rates. The goal is to kill fast growing cells like cancer tumor cells. Unfortunately hair cells are also fast growing and get killed off by chemotherapy. The human immune system is also fast growing so that it can change and adapt to newly introduced germs-it too is killed off by chemotherapy. By killing the immune system, and poisoning many other types of cells, chemotherapy risks doing too much damage to the entire body by making it defenseless to all sorts of other secondary infectious diseases, and also risks that the cancer spread unchecked by the immune system that would normally attempt to destroy diseased cells. Another fast growing set of human cells is the bone marrow that is the source of the manufacture of adult stem cells, and red blood cells--this bone marrow is also killed off by chemotherapy. You do the math... Weight loss, loss of appetite, and a general ill-health often results from such ingestion of poisons into the system

According to cancer book author, chartered accountant, Ty Bollinger, a survey conducted in Montreal Canada hospitals of cancer doctors found that about 75% of these oncologists would not undergo chemotherapy, and opt for some alternative treatment. Bollinger states that many of these chemotherapeutic agents are not clinically proven or approved the way other drugs are by the FDA because no peer reviewed medical journal-published double blind clinical trials are ever undertaken to prove their usefulness compared to other treatments-not even an untreated control group of patients. See >"Ty Bollinger" cancer< He has several long videos where he explains the trickery of allopathic cancer doctors and the pharmaceutical industry with statistical efficacy estimates for various types of cancers.

Everyone in my family who underwent surgery, chemotherapy and radiation to treat their various forms of cancer died quickly of the treatment and not the disease. Some people that I have met went the alternative treatment route with supposedly known "unproven / unapproved" cancer treatments and are still alive years later--go figure?

Some people have been cured (undergone spontaneous remission) of advanced stage pancreatic cancer by using various different unconventional and unproven cancer therapies, whereas I know personally of people who jumped whole heartedly into conventional chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery and died very quickly of the treatments and not the disease. Accounts of people using Cancell / Jim Juice / Cantron are available on You-Tube. Laetrile and Amygdalin are also powerful anti-cancer agents. The Beck Protocol can also be used to help. There are numerous anti-cancer diets like the Budwig diet (where cottage cheese is combined with flaxseed oil) and Gerson Therapy. Royal Rife plasma radio frequency machine treatments can help. Many of these cancer therapies can be safely combined, but you must do your research of what has helped other people's conditions.

A doctor in the 1930s named Dr. Otto Warburg discovered that cancer cells have a different metabolism-they produce their energy from sugar by fermentation rather than oxygenation-he won the 1931 Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology. Fermentation is a less efficient method of energy production from sugar that does not consume oxygen. Many different cancers are caused by or prolonged by microbial infections of fungus, viruses, bacteria or mycoplasmas-each of which produce their own toxic byproducts / wastes that prolong the cancer / malignancy / disease. This is why a full body detoxification is required to purge the underlying cause of disease.

One risk factor link for pancreatic cancer is the consumption of alcoholic beverages. These are often derived from yeast fermentation action on various sugars.

One treatment for cancer is sodium bicarbonate (baking soda-an inexpensive, powerful anti-fungal, anti-yeast agent) for internal cancers and tincture (painting) of iodine for external (skin) cancers by a Rome, Italy oncologist / cancer doctor (See either on the web or videos >"cancer as a fungus" Rome Italy oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini< This doctor shows before and after documentation of actual cases that have undergone remission in about 1.5 weeks time). This doctor's theories indicate that fungal colonies are difficult for the body to fight, so the body's immune system just tries to isolate the colonies by encapsulating them in tumor tissues. By killing the underlying fungal infections, the need for the tumor encapsulation goes away, and the tumors are absorbed back into the system.

One route to enlightenment is to watch as many Google and You-Tube videos concerning cancer and cancer therapies.

Many of these videos and web pages will explain why unconventional cancer therapies are pooh-poohed not necessarily because they are believed not to work by conventional medicine, but because they are not under the control of the money powers behind conventional Western medicine, the descendants of the rich tycoons of the early 1900s that established allopathic medicine to promote the use of money making patented poisons-pharmaceutical drugs. (See >cutting burning poisoning Germany "allopathic medicine" Rockefeller Flexner Carnegie pharmaceutical OR drug<). Without merit these allopathic practitioners decry any methods that they do not employ as quackery (since these methods represent their successful competition that permanently drives away their customers-sick patients that get and stay well) . If any particular unconventional therapy was so deadly, every such surviving family member would be telling other potential patients of the dangers, and suing for wrongful death so that no one would be willing to try the particular 'dangerous' treatment method. Instead, one sees many testimonials that are made by the surviving patients themselves where some are saying that 60 years ago, I had cancer and am still alive today when doctors told me I had 2 weeks to live-and similar such stories.

The allopathic tradition comes from Germany where bad or 'evil' humors were replaced using toxic potions (drugs), where at one point in history the use of mercury and leaches were used to treat all sorts of diseases, and "quacksalber" or "quackenslaver" or "quecksilber" ("nimble silver") was the old German word for mercury-a treatment, ironically, that allopaths used themselves to treat diseases. The words quack and quackery come from this German word for mercury. Said to be the most potent toxins of all, next to radioactive plutonium, mercury compounds of various sorts are very potent neurotoxic agents that spontaneously disassemble nerves in the brain, creating tangles that are virtually identical to Alzheimer's disease pathology / symptoms. The cause of many neurological diseases comes about because of the pushing of profits of vaccine companies who produce vials of their mixtures containing a mercury preservative named thimerosal. Various tainted (specially structured to hide the truth) studies of thimerosal are being promoted as demonstrating that thimerosal is not connected with causing autism or autism-like symptoms, however, non-tainted studies and the government's own statistical evidence shows that it is directly connected and that a sizable list of experts know and are covering it up since a secret meeting in June 2000. See >thimerosal June 2000 Simpsonwood secret meeting dogs monkeys OR chimpanzees<.

There are so many suppressed cancer cures that it is not funny. Many of these cures are only attempted by most cancer patients after their conventional therapies have not worked and their doctors have pronounced them incurable. G. Edward Griffin explains that even with these hopeless cases, there is a 15% survival rate--which is a hugely better than 0% upon hopeless cases. Griffin explains that for his preferred treatment that there is an 85% cure rate if it is started in place of conventional cutting, burning, and poisoning.

Cancer has numerous causes.

The underlying causes of cancer may include mutations, viral alterations to cellular DNA, toxic chemical alterations to cellular DNA, radiation poisoning that continuously causes cellular mutations, weakened immune system, weakened pancreatic / proteolytic enzyme production, fugal infection that promotes an adverse immune system response, and poor diet.

A surgical procedure will not remove the underlying cause of the disease. Allopathic medicine typically treats symptoms of disease (by cutting-surgery, burning-radiation, and poisons-patented pharmaceutical drugs) and not the underlying causes.

Most medical scientists believe that healthy people get cancerous cells occurring all of the time, but because the people are healthy, their systems quickly get rid of the trouble without developing any tumors at all.

Alternative medicine attempts to address the underlying causes of illness. Usually this is addressed by age old remedies empirically known to have worked for centuries.

Allopathic medicine that uses cutting, burning, and poisons became dominant in Western civilizations because of large money interests in the early 1900s setting up the medical system to promote the use of money-making drugs (patentable poisons) in the treatment of disease symptoms rather than the underlying causes.

Key players in this history were the Rockefeller family. The Rockefeller family initially found wealth by monopolizing the oil and gas energy sector in the 1800s and early 1900s. According to historians they were able to do this by buying out their competitors, arranging sweet deals to transport their goods, and having the lowest prices. But how could they manage this kind of operation from the start? Some non-mainstream historians believe that like J.P. Morgan, J.D. Rockefeller Sr. got huge unsecured loans from the Rothschild banking family of Europe, permitting Rockefeller to buy out his competition, and grease the wheels of anyone needing to be influenced, all while undercutting on prices. The Rockefeller interests spread to include "influencing government," media, banking, pharmaceutical drugs, higher education, the human genome project, and depopulation (population control).

The tycoons of the day found that their money went farther if it went untaxed, and so formed charitable tax-exempt foundations whose funding could go towards investments that would promote their existing monopolies. By providing investment money for certain projects, and de-funding that of others, they could virtually control the direction taken for various fields of endeavor including science and medicine. To further amplify this charitable influence, a consultant from the Pillsbury Corporation, Fred T. Gates, suggested that matching community funds be combined with foundation money, effectively doubling the monies invested, actively involving community public participation, while retaining the prestige of the name of the tycoon on the buildings and tycoon control of the resulting projects. The Flexner report of 1910 is credited with elevating the quality of medical education in America. It was sponsored by the AMA Inc., the Carnegie Foundation for Education, and the Rockefeller family. It recommended that non-allopathic medical schools be closed, the remaining medical schools merge with existing universities, and that they all be well funded by the tycoons and their tax exempt foundations.

Curricula in places of higher education were directed by board members specifically placed there by tycoons and their foundations. No one in these schools would learn anything not pre-approved by the tycoons to bolster their businesses. Any dissenting voices were crushed by critical peers who were in the sphere of influence of the tycoons. This specifically happened if the scientific researcher found a legitimate discovery such as a disease cause, or a successful means of treatment not involving patentable poisons or burning or cutting. The discoveries would be decried as quackery and nostrums. Doors of opportunity would be slammed shut to non-compliant researchers. The force of government was behind the monopolists permitting police to confiscate equipment politically and unscientifically declared 'unsafe,' practitioners threatened with de-licensing, and the researchers imprisoned if they persisted in making medical claims not sanctioned by the Rockefeller establishment. Non compliant M.D.s would become unlicensed, and publicly called quacks.

Accounts of researchers discovering cancer cures are widespread on the Internet. When these discoverers talk to cancer societies, government officials, and medical practitioners about their findings, they are persecuted for their claims, and begin to encounter legal troubles.

Since WW2 until the early 1970s Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland was a biological warfare research lab. William Campbell Douglas, M.D., National Health Federation's 1985 Doctor of the Year, published AIDS: The End of Civilization, 1989, detailing the development of HIV by scientists working at the army's biowarfare lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Dr. Leonard Horowitz has also accounts of the development of the HIV virus by the special cancer virus program funded in the early 1970s as proposed by US National Security Advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger. National Cancer Institute (NCI), Frederick, Maryland is was Fort Detrick run by the US military, and is now run by the NIH. US President Richard M. Nixon invented the private health insurance care system in the USA (as can be seen in the Michael Moore film SiCKO in the "Richard Nixon - Oval Office Recordings" part), converted the army Fort over to the NCI. Scientific medical personnel and on going projects remained intact.

Nixon, Kissinger, Bush Sr., and Haig were all involved in the White House activities surrounding Watergate, Vietnam, and CIA operations of Air America that had arms, drugs, and money laundering. Each of these men were members in the Rockefeller think tank group, the Council on Foreign Relations, and according to many historians all of them took "marching orders" from that rich and powerful family. The Rockefeller family has been interested in depopulation (population control) for many years, and so directed Dr. Henry Kissinger and others to increase efforts to curb population (particularly of some racial / genome types) through biological, drug, and chemical research, development, and application.

The HIV AIDS drug AZT (supposedly exhibited anti-retro-viral properties in only one early study) initially developed as a chemotherapeutic / toxic agent in 1964 against cancer cells is made by Burrows Wellcome, controlled by the Rockefeller family. Burrows Wellcome became Glaxo Wellcome, and Glaxo Wellcome became Glaxo Smith-Kline. State procecutors are confincing judges to issue felony charges against parents who refuse to treat their HIV positive children with AZT, a drug proven in 1993 not to work. Directors of the NIH have frequently changed jobs to Rockefeller foundation-funded universities and medical centers. Dr. Leonard Horowitz in his film "In Lies We Trust" and his book "Emerging Viruses: Aids and Ebola" goes further than just the development of the HIV virus and details a long lists of other disease plagues that were cultured and developed by the US warfare lab including kuru (mad cow / Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease), wasting diseases, and various leukemia and sarcoma cancer viruses. Horowitz and others cite a growing body of evidence that various Rockefeller family members have been involved in many nefarious schemes to make money through monopoly practices, destabilize economies, prolong war conflicts while funding both sides, and depopulate regions of the world wealthy in natural resources, and promote an undemocratic one world Anglo-American government. The Rockefeller family have owned or controlled many different drug companies and medical research facilities.

According to G. Edward Griffin (and others), Rockefeller family members sat on the board of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK or MSKCC) and suppressed all of several successful double blind studies conducted on Laetrile, a control for cancer that is mostly a concentrated form of a natural substance that is derived from nitrilicides found in about 1,400 types of fruits, grasses, and seeds, and in the meat of free-range animals that eat those things. While suppressing the several successful MSK internal studies, MSK publicized at a large press conference the one external (tainted) study that found 40% spontaneous remission rates in both Laetrile and saline solution / control groups of experimental animals. G. Edward Griffin states that obviously saline solution does not cure cancer, so the scientists must have deliberately mixed the control group with the Laetrile group of animals, thereby lowering Laetrile's effectiveness at the same time as increasing the cure rate of the saline solution / control. See >Dr Ralph Moss Laetrile Rockefeller "Memorial Sloan Kettering" "Kanematsu Sugiura"<

The with monies provided by the Rockefeller Foundation, the AMA, and the Carnegie Foundation for Education organized the (Abraham) "Flexner Report" of 1910 that closed many medical schools, shunned all other types of medicine and medical science other than allopathic medicine. Immediately after the report the Rockefeller Foundation hired Abraham, his brother Simon, and Fredrick T. Gates. The report suggested that funding for various medical schools and universities be put up by the rich tycoons of the day and their tax-exempt charitable foundations. This had the effect of greatly improving the quality of medical education and standards, but also suppressed all forms of medicine that were not based on cutting, burning, and prescribing patented poisons (pharmaceutical drugs). Eventually, the AMA was appointed to oversee the practice of medicine in America, and laws were enacted that prevented any doctors practicing medicine without a license from one of the AMA state medical boards. Drug companies hired AMA doctors for drug development. Drug and food safety testing was put in the hands of AMA doctors working for the US FDA. The Rockefeller family and their foundations fund most of the US medical schools, and Rockefeller employees (Simon, Abraham, and Fred, etc) sat on the boards of universities to direct the type of curricula covered. This sequence of events monopolized the medical field so that only Rockefeller family-approved medical treatments would be allowed. Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller family and others also funded the drug industry, the AMA, and medical schools. Once Radium was found to irradiate / burn tissues, medical demand for it pushed the price up thousands of percent.

The J.P. Morgan interests, the Rockefeller family, and other tycoons formed a group of industrialists who wanted the USA to enter WWI. American banks they controlled would loan monies to both sides for war expenses, while others intended to profit from manufacturing munitions and supplies. To do this they wanted to influence public opinion through the news media. In 1917 congressman Oscar Callaway entered into the public record that this group of tycoons did exactly that in March 1915. (See also >congressional record 25 newspapers Morgan 1917 February 9 March 1915<) The USA was lured into the first war by the sinking of a passenger ship that was deliberately sent into the conflict zone. (See >Passenger ship weapons WWI USA war sunk Lucitania CFR OR "J.P. Morgan" OR Rothschild<). After the war had ended, several US-soil army bases were the source of the out break of the 1918 Spanish flu that killed 40 to 50 million people world wide when all of the soldiers at all the US bases were ordered to be inoculated with various vaccines that were likely infected with the disease according to NYC author Charles M. Higgins in a 1920 published petition to the US President to abolish compulsory vaccination in army and navy (available on-line as a PDF via Scribd). The lead legal council for J.P. Morgan and other members of this group later formed the Council on Foreign Relations. In successive years this group of powerful military industrial complex movers and shakers bought up more than 90% of all news media outlets, and virtually control all TV, radio, and newspapers. Many of the senior news anchors are members of the Rockefeller CFR. The John Birch Society has produced articles and video presentations warning of the undue influence this group has over world events, and its wealth. The group has been accused of operating the CIA as its own enforcement agency, carrying out political assassinations, running drugs, laundering money through Wall Street-listed large corporations, and destabilizing economies of poorer nations to gain control over their natural resources. The US laws involving money laundering permit the movement of only a modest amount of cash for normal citizens, however, the laws expressly permit corporations listed on the major stock exchange the unfettered ability to conduct whatever physical movement of cash that they want. In the 1990s so much money laundering was happening that Janet Reno called in corporate executives to a meeting to reduce the otherwise criminal activities. (See also >"Janet Reno" General Motors Electric Sony money laundering<)

Royal Raymond Rife was a clever optician and electrical tinkerer who developed a powerful microscope supposedly capable of seeing live viruses, and discovered two different cancer viruses in the early 1930s. Rife got funding from a rich magnate named Timken who manufactured roller bearings where Rife had developed an automated X-ray method of detecting flaws in the bearings, and rejecting the bad ones. So during the 1930s depression, with this money Rife ran a medical experimentation lab to identify microbial causes of disease.

Using some of the operating principles of his microscopes that stained his samples with various monochromatic filtered colors of light, Rife supposedly developed a medium frequency radio wave method of killing microbial pathogens.

Rife's first system used an amplifier that had about 500 watts input power into the output radio vacuum tube. Rife started the Beam Ray Corporation for radio frequency medical machine manufacturing. The AMA and their sponsors wanted to control Rife's treatment. They sent in agents (supposedly some brothers last name starts with H) who made Rife various offers. Rife refused probably thinking that his inventions would be suppressed. There afterwards Rife found himself in trouble doing his R & D and manufacturing of this medical equipment because his doctor clients were being threatened with losing their medical licenses if they did not stop successfully using the devices to treat cancer and a wide variety of other diseases that were at least in part caused or assisted by microbial infections of one sort or another. Rife had probably sold and trained 30 medical doctors in the use of his machine in California and nearby states, and maybe several doctors out side of the USA, including a doctor from Montreal, Canada. Whether Rife knew that some of these tiny organisms were exactly mycoplasmas, or viruses, or bacteria, he could only determine that some of these were able to pass through extremely fine medical grade porcelain filters. Much of the time Rife referred to these as filter-passing organisms / forms of disease. Rife supposedly documented and proved many times over that he could isolate a disease organism known to be bacterial, grow it in glass containers, at some stage in its life cycle be able to have the microbe in filter passing form (what Rife at the time said was likely a virus), then inject it in otherwise healthy animals to give them the disease as well. Without any basis in scientific observational fact, doctors in the employ of the Rockefeller family pooh-poohed the entire idea that the microbial forms of certain diseases had more than one life cycle form (pleomorphic forms). These were Dr. Thomas M. Rivers and pathologist Hans Zinsser of the Rockefeller Institute.

No other microscopes of the time could (and very few microscopes can even now) be used to view live "virus sized" particles other that Rife's own custom-made devices, so based on nothing, Rivers, looking through his own optical lab microscopes that were incapable of viewing virus size particles and then lied that he could not replicate the viral forms described in the published experimental results of Dr. Author I. Kendall of Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, and Rife (PMID: 18741967, PMID: 17782489) , calling them both liars to their face.

An agent of AMA head Dr. Morris Fishbein (with the go ahead from his sponsors) supposedly provided $10,000 to Rife's business partner, radio engineering technician Phillip Hoyland, to file a lawsuit against Beam Ray Corp / Rife to have the AMA agent(s) placed on the board of directors of the company. Rife won the lawsuit, but the stress of the trial drove Rife to abuse alcohol. Fishbein testified under oath in 1938 that he had never practiced medicine in his life, and did not complete his requisite internship at medical school.

Later, one State of California AMA medical board doctor had the Rife devices banned when he took the stand and testified that they were unsafe, even though declared safe by several engineering and medical labs. Once this happened, the police authorities confiscated and destroyed the Rife Beam Ray devices from Rife's lab and the medical doctors who had previously refused to give them up.

My understanding of Rife's and others' written notes indicates that the microorganisms that fostered malignancy seemed to either make or eat or coalesce around deposits of toxins. When the microorganisms are killed off, they release the toxins that they have harbored, thereby killing the cancerous tumor cells- -acting like a highly targeted magic bullet to kill the cancer. However, the toxins still remain in the body, (Rife himself said that the toxins by themselves could be injected into a second healthy lab animal to cause the same cancer,) and can migrate elsewhere and cause cancer to form elsewhere. Therefore, the Rife treatment machine is acting like a painless surgery to stop cancer in one place, while likely letting the toxic cause to "spread" elsewhere. A combined treatment would be to detoxify as much as possible before, during, and after such Rife treatments. One Australian alternative practitioner said that he combined Rife, the Beck protocol, and H. R. Clark's herbal treatments.

Dr. Morris Fishbein and the Hearst newspapers were later successfully sued for $100,000 in the Harry M. Hoxey vs. Fishbein-Hearst libel trial 1949. Fishbein disgraced was ousted on June 6, 1949 at the AMA convention in Atlantic City supposedly for "years of advertising fraud and fund stealing."

Eustace Mullins writes in his 1988 book Murder by Injection,

Fishbein's Hearst newspaper article called Hoxsey a Cancer Charlatan. Fishbein gave his favorite phrase: Of all the ghouls who feed on the bodies of the dead and the dying, the cancer quacks are most vicious and most heartless. And "Hoxsey's best friend was the local undertaker." Patricia Ward in her report to Congress quotes this sort of attitude as setting the "low level of discourse and the emotional rather than analytical tone that have characterized the American medical profession's response to unorthodox remedies."

Nicknamed "Medicine's Mussolini," Fishbein conducted battles against the alternative treatments. Products were seldom tested for their real effects on health, only advertising revenues were considered. For years the AMA abused its position of power by selling its "approval" seal to advertisers whose products were unsafe and unhealthy. Competing products that contained virtually the same ingredients would be found on both the AMA's "approved" and "disapproved" lists at the same time, the only difference between them being whether the given brand placed paid ads in the Journal of the AMA. Cigarette tobacco manufacturer Phillip Morris was the AMA Journal's biggest advertiser in the 1940's, making it impossible for any doctor who preached that "smoking was bad for you" to stay in good standing with Dr Morris Fishbein.

Fishbein conflicted with anyone who wouldn't bow to his wishes. And when alternative therapies were successfully used instead of drugs, Fishbein wanted in on it, or war would result. His motto was "If I can't have it, no one will." Having failed anatomy in medical school, Fishbein did everything to understate the value of nutrition. From Dr Royal Raymond Rife, Max Gerson, to Harry Hoxsey, they were all put on trial and politically slaughtered for curing cancer without Fishbein's permission.

Quoted from a web page entitled The American Medical Association that quotes from Chapter 3 of Barry Lynes book The Healing of Cancer: The Cures the Cover-Ups and the Solution Now! :

"There is reason to believe that the AMA has been hasty, capricious, arbitrary, and outright dishonest . . .

"If radium, X-ray or surgery or either of them is the complete answer, then the greatest hoax of the age is being perpetrated upon the people by the continued appeal for funds for further research. If neither X-ray, radium or surgery is the complete answer to this dreaded disease, and I submit that it is not, then what is the plain duty of society? Should we stand still? Should we sit idly by and count the number of physicians, surgeons and cancerologists who are not only divided but who, because of fear or favor, are forced to line up with the so-called accepted view of the American Medical Association, or should this Committee make a full-scale investigation of the organized effort to hinder, suppress and restrict the free flow of drugs which allegedly have proven successful in cases where clinical records, case history, pathological reports and X-ray photographic proof, together with the alleged cured patients, are available?

"Accordingly, we should determine whether existing agencies, both public and private, are engaged in and have pursued a policy of harassment, ridicule, slander and libelous attacks on others sincerely engaged in stamping out this curse of mankind. Have medical associations, through their officers, agents, servants and employees engaged in this practice? My investigation to date should convince this Committee that a conspiracy does exist to stop the free flow and use of drugs in interstate commerce which allegedly (have) solid therapeutic value. Public and private funds have been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics, hospitals, and scientific research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations. How long will the American people take this?

That report of the United States Congress was issued over 35 years ago. The conspiracy has continued, grown stronger, and in many ways is more ruthless today. Senator Tobey soon conveniently died of a heart attack. (This has happened to others who were in a position to threaten the cancer industry.)

That web page outlines the history of whole groups of doctors who were murdered / died suddenly / jailed after continuing to cure patients with unauthorized treatments.

Ruth Mulvey Harmer, Ph.D. in her 1975 book American Medical Avarice characterized Fishbein as having the "ruthlessness of a shark" and concluded that he "managed to hold back the twentieth century for 50 years for the benefit of organized medicine."

To this day Morris Fishbein is seen as a medical hero by some web sites for his so called quackbusting. In this case, quacks are merely otherwise successful competitors to organized medicine.

Recently there was an edutainment TV program. It was about sacred geometries. One of the featured items was the pyramid. A household couple showed for the TV audience a bunch of fruit bowls hanging below a copper plumbing tube outline of a four sided pyramid. They claimed that the pyramid kept their food from going rotten. One at a time the couple would grab a fruit and tell the investigators how many weeks old it was and then gave the investigators a taste of it. Some people claim that pyramids can keep razor blades sharp. Some pyramids made of various kinds of crystals are claimed to have healing capabilities.

Researchers who have built pyramids of 2 or so stories in height have claimed that electrical energy flowing through the air in the middle of the structure had given them a terrible shock, sending them flying across the room. Gain electrons = Reduction, Lose electrons = Oxidation. In one experiment this pyramid / crystal person claimed to have done, they took a piece of zinc and placed it hanging on a string into the center of the pyramid. After several days the metal found was calcium. After further time, supposedly the metal had turned into aluminum. If these geometries do in fact gather and focus energy, then maybe protons within the metal pieces was being kicked out, bit by bit with time, and the metal transformed into lighter and lighter atomic weight metal elements. Because mass equals energy times the speed of light of free space squared, it is possible that the energy was being grabbed from the metal material slowly over time. It is too bad that this experimenter did not have proper funding and measurement instrumentation to log as many readings happening from one moment to the next to further quantify what might be occurring in his experiments?

Some researchers in England claimed to have been able to start to measure subtle energy using mono-molecular gold colloids and light. Supposedly, the same mechanisms of action used in documented medical scientific experiments where biological cellular chemistry is studied and incident laser light used to monitor the gold colloid particle concentrations increasing or decreasing depending on nearby chemical ions and what not. The color in both cases changes from red towards purple in the color frequency spectrum. The subtle energy is related to homeopathy and so called "memory of structured water" that has been ridiculed many times by mainstream scientists. Too bad these subtle energy experimenter guys so far have not produced any videos to illustrate any concrete findings in these experiments? If their experiments are repeatable in a systematic step by step manner, this would be a nice development in science. Perhaps this method if it is further developed could measure "Orgone energy" that was investigated by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich in the 1930s and then would explain the operation of the Joe Cell energy device? Orgone is claimed to have both negative and positive vortex polarities and have both positive and negative health benefits. If proven to exist, promoters would probably see a large increase in interest.

While on the topic of subtle energy fields and energy medicine, I began to remember something that I researched last year some time using the following search: >"Aura therapy" Lee OR Leavander Crock machine OR Mexistim< The electronic principles of this kind of machine are quite simple, but whether or not the machine does anything other than placebo effect is up to the user, further experimental inquiry, and maybe the proper implementation of the field antennae / metal sheets or screens.

The belief posited by this group of people who support this aura therapy device is that the human body is damaged and repairs itself, replacing practically your entire body mass over a particular span of time. For certain body parts the replacement time is short, and for others it is very long. If living things have any form of energy field around them, then it likely interacts somewhat with its surroundings, and visa versa. The knowledge or intelligence of one's entire being is supposedly contained within your cellular DNA and RNA. If some of these molecular structures are damaged (as is probably the case for cancer), it will impact the correctness of your health- - and the way your body's repair system may or may not repair itself correctly. Whether these fields stem from or interact with these building blocks of DNA / RNA or not to signal damage, repair, or the opposite, no scientists can be certain without being able to measure subtle energy or Orgone energy or bio-electrical auras or whatever hidden, esoteric, arcane mysteries.

According to Muriel Agnes in her energy medicine dissertation, "Toward an Integral Energy Medicine Model For Understanding The Vascular Autonomic Signal," she describes in the abstract that "the Vascular Autonomic Signal (VAS) is a physiological response of the neurovascular system of the body to information being brought into its energy field." She goes on to state that French medical scientist "Dr. Paul Nogier in 1966" had investigated and discovered this system.

In related mainstream medical research Nogier described that he found pulse frequencies that affected the health of various biological systems within the human body. These frequencies have been used by the latest medical appliances that use LED light to do tissue regeneration, wound healing, and pain relief now being studied by NATO and NASA. LED light therapy has been experimentally studied to be able to recover eye damage done to fighter pilots whose eyes were damaged by laser emissions of enemy missile tracking guidance systems. Prior to this, studies were done on rats where one of their eyes' retinas were purposefully damaged using lasers, and the other eye left undamaged as a control. After IR and near IR application of LED light into the damaged eyes of the sets of rats for a few minutes duration per day, a period of weeks or so, the damaged retinas were found to have been completely repaired and indistinguishable from the state of the control. Also, researchers in England have been using a high power LED helmet to reverse the effects of Alzheimer's disease. Since its announcement in 2007 or so, at least one patient has been put forward as having been successfully treated with the experimental device during the summer / fall of 2008.

The Lee Crock aura therapy device sets up a static, low voltage electric field around the patient undergoing the therapy. The field makes use of the electro-chemical properties of low impedance D-cell alkaline batteries in a bank of between 4.5 to 9 volts DC. The static field is established in a sandwich geometry with one antenna screen / conductive blanket above the bed mattress of the patient and the other one under the patient, but neither making contact with the patient or the opposite polarity blanket / screen / antenna (preventing the battery causing a short circuit). Electrically, the patient is inside an electrical capacitor between the plates of opposite electrical polarity.

The Lee Crock aura therapy device then uses an electrical timer set to trip every 12 to 18 or so minutes to switch the polarity of the antenna screens / conductive blankets / electrical plates. This is usually implemented using a double pole - double throw relay that toggles the battery leads running to the antenna screens / conductive blankets / electrical plates.

The plan of this scheme is supposedly to reset the "patient's aura" via the influence of the low alternating frequency electric field switching. Crock and his followers think that this is the best thing since sliced bread, claiming that it is like the fountain of youth.

At some point, Crock describes, he found that only one screen needed to be used, and that it worked better somehow that way. I do not know if his device just grounds the other polarity of the toggled battery leads or what - - I assumed that it did when I constructed my own replica of his machine. In my duplication, however, I did not use a proper screen meshing to distribute the batteries' electrical field near my bed, nor did I properly orient the antenna screen to run the length of my body during night time sleep as was recommended, so my reproduction was likely to fail to produce positive results. I have since found a better source of aluminum bug screen sheets at a local, big box, hardware store that could be better used to make a larger, lighter weight antenna screen than the very heavy gauge, stiff, chicken cage wire mesh that I am now using.

I have used a 555 timer running at 15 Hz or so, and put the output into a CMOS 16 stage ripple binary counter IC. The 555 runs in a more stable frequency using moderate sized timing resistors and capacitors, rather than running with larger electrolytic capacitors, and higher timing resistors, and not using the 16 stage ripple binary counter IC. After minor adjustments, I got the polarity switch signal for the relay to run at about a 15 minute interval as is approximately the one recommended in Crock's literature detailed on-line in a Nexus magazine article or similar such thing. The timer's output is fed into a small signal discrete NPN or PNP transistor with a suitable sized input resistor. The relay coil is bypassed for inductive kick-back using a standard silicon signal diode such as a 1N4148. The entire IC set is powered from a 9 Volt AC to DC adapter that feeds into a three pin TO-220 package 7805C voltage regulator IC with only a super small aluminum fin heat sink. The 5 volts output from that voltage regulator IC then feeds the other logic IC chips (555 timer, and the 16 stage binary counter IC). The batteries drain virtually no current, and the ICs are all so low power that the system draws less current than an LED alarm clock radio, so I let the thing run 24/7 for months at a time

What substance is addictive, but less so than coffee, has a calming / sedative effect, makes you hungry, effectively treats glaucoma, epilepsy, has anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidative and neuro-protective effects, and is an anti-cancer agent? (Hint: see PMID: 18833429, among others...)

Yet some hidden political hand has US federally-prohibited the natural substance starting in 1937 after the 1936 movie about "Reefer Madness!" The people behind the prohibition have enough political power and influence to have the same ban applied in Canada, the UK, and most EU countries. The ban is virtually baseless and acts only to protect the Rockefeller run cancer industry, and the Rockefeller run drug industry specifically.

Did that same substance have fake studies done that showed that brain damage resulted from its use? (see PMID: 4631500) Search >"rhesus monkeys" smoke cannabis OR marijuana OR THC OR Tetrahydrocannabinol asphyxiation< Video search >"the Rick Simpson Story"<

Lead is a known neurotoxin. Its stated purpose when it was added to gasoline long ago was that it was an antiknock agent, yet at the time many other safer antiknock agents were known to industry and government. Who could have enough influence to sway government to allow this lingering poison to be circulated commercially, and then released into air, water, and so on? Lead is also a carcinogen. Gasoline additives such as lead were also known to clog up high efficiency, high mileage carburetors invented by Charles N. Pogue in 1935 that were meant to make the chemical properties of the gas more uniform in terms of combustion properties like ignition temperature so that more of the power of the gas would be released more uniformly rather than have some of it still burning in the exhaust system, wasting its power. A study in the 1950s or 60s involving lead chelation (removal of heavy metal poisons from the blood and body) indicated that the incidence of cancer dropped significantly in the treated subjects as compared with the untreated citizenry of the same Swiss highway town of the study.

Aternative medicine remedies have been in the form of diet change, and the addition of certain vitamins, minerals, and supplements, combined with treatments with ozone, or peroxide, or hyperbaric oxygen, radio frequency plasma machine treatments, blood electrification, drinking of properly prepared colloidal silver water, pulsed electro-magnetic field treatments, tincture of iodine, or treatment with sodium bicarbonate. Detoxification is also key since a large proportion of malignancy is believed to be directly caused by toxins (possibly in the presence of pathogens).

Bad oil is hydrogenated oil used in processing foods so that they do not spoil. If microorganisms cannot live on this oil (to cause spoilage), how can we humans live on it? Perhaps this stuff is so bad that it is a major part of what is killing us?

The Budwig diet is one where flaxseed oil and cottage cheese are mixed and eaten. The biochemical effect is that this good type oil is made water soluble so that it can be absorbed into the cells of the body themselves to eliminate or displace other proteins that have poor cell oxygenation properties, and by doing so, oxygen energize existing cells, reverse the fermentation processes happening in cancer cells, possibly reverting these cells back to normal cells.

Gerson therapy is applied on a per patient basis by first evaluating the needs of the patient and customizing the diet for them. This diet involves juicing of a huge quantity of vegetables and fruits on an hourly basis and drinking it all, eating cooked vegetables, and taking coffee enemas. Coffee is a diuretic. As such the coffee when introduced into the colon will force the kidneys to express more urine than normal, ridding the body of more toxins than normal. The juicing machine endorsed by the followers of this diet is a grind then press unit that does not centrifugally spin the vegetable or fruit pulp. Supposedly this spinning action oxidizes a lot of the nutrients of the juice meant to go into the patient to improve their health. This grind and press juicing method can be crudely done by buying a meat grinder to slowly grind the vegetable or fruit, then using a multi-ton hydraulic jack to press / crush the ground vegetable and fruit pulp to release the juice. Typically the ground pulp is placed within a small fabric bag that when pressed by several tons force has the juices come out through the weaving of the fabric like a filtering effect to remove the liquid juice from the pulp.

Toxic chemicals from our environment find their way into our bodies. Some people genetically store the toxins in fat tissue, while other people do not. There are many toxins and various specific supplements (or chelation agents) to take to rid the body of many of them. The usual method to detoxify from these is to do various organ cleanses. Sometimes this involves doing a juice fast where all the body's needs must be met by drinking various fruit and vegetable juices for 1.5 to 2 weeks straight.

Some medical scientists believe that the body's own repair system intended to heal wounds, bruises, cuts, scrapes, and so on can sometimes go out of control where undifferentiated (stem) cells sent in to repair a damaged area do not stop reproducing because the electrical and chemical signals that regulate such processes have failed to halt this process. The theory goes that if the cancer cells are destroyed by laetrile / amygdalin, the tissues of the tumor can be reabsorbed into the system by proteolytic enzymes produced by the pancreas. This is very bad news if you have your pancreas removed by surgery. (See trophoblastic theory of cancer).

They account for the different types of cancer by the original type of tissue damage that was being repaired.

This theory is supported by people like G. Edward Griffin (and his many medical doctor colleagues) whose videos can be viewed on Google Videos. In his videos, he does not explain everything that is involved with the treatment method that he prefers (as he claims to do in his book on the topic), but most of the ideas seem to be nicely expressed and easy to understand.

Still other scientists in India, Russia, Germany, Cuba, Mexico, etc, have treated both the blood and the tumor areas with medical ozone, and performed blood irradiation with ultraviolet light to damage microbial blood-borne pathogens so that the body's auto immune system quickly develops resistance to these pathogens, thereby removing the cause of certain varieties of malignancy. Theoretically, this will work with some but perhaps not all cancers. Although there are Google videos about this ozone injection into tumors, there are no after follow-ups taken of the results days, weeks, or even months after the surgery- -so this remains in the speculative column for me.

In 1990 Drs. Steven Kaali and William Lyman discovered that biocompatible electric current (a few millionths of an Ampere) could be used on blood, (and other bodily or synthetic fluids) to inactivate the HIV AIDS virus infectivity in-vitro (PMID: 15858720).

Using this information and examining the patents filed by Kaali, et al., Dr. Robert C. Beck, DSc. Physics, determined that such a biocompatible (small) electrical current could be induced to flow through the skin, into the blood, down one of the major arterial blood vessels in the forearm and back out through the skin without exsanguination (invasively removing quantities of blood from the body into a treatment machine, then putting it back into the body). Numerous AIDS patients who listened to Bob Beck spontaneously recovered within about one month. Testing that Beck had sponsored showed before and after Polymerase Chain Reaction Tests that saw the HIV viral loads go to such low levels that they were indistinguishable from zero on the measurement equipment used in the lab testing procedures. Beck publicized his treatment application, and some cancer patients began experimentally using it along with some herbal remedies recommended by Hulda Regehr Clark. After about a month's time these cancer patients reported back to Beck that they had undergone spontaneous remissions from the disease. Beck then incorporated this information in many of his lectures. Beck also found that there were shortcomings in his treatment when the AIDS virus could lay dormant within other body tissues and re-emerge later on. For this he developed a PEMF (pulsed electro magnetic field) device. The device would emit a very strong magnetic pulse from the sudden release of current from the stored electrical charge of a capacitor into an air core inductor of about 1 to 2.5 milli-Henrys. He also used low concentration colloidal silver in / using demineralized water to boost the immune system and rid the gastrointestinal tract of parasites and pathogenic microbes. (The use of demineralized water prevents the formation of silver salts that can cause a skin discoloration disease that turns a person's skin gray--argyria). Lastly, he found that patients were usually taking about a month to recover, and determined that by using ozonated drinking water that the inactivated pathogens could be more easily filtered out of the body via the kidneys, thereby cutting in half the recovery time using his treatment methods. He began to call his treatment method "The Beck Protocol." Medical doctors who saw this as economic competition to their business began to pooh-pooh the entire scheme without even experimentally giving it a try (the scientific method), and down played any scientific basis for the theory of its modality, calling it "quackery and nostrums." Beck knew that the FDA and AMA would likely try to entrap him and charge him with practicing medicine without a license, but Beck was careful to label this as medical experimentation and made no recommendations that any one particular sick person do any of these treatments without first consulting with their own medical professional.

The Beck Protocol involves killing various pathogenic causes of diseases including HIV AIDS, fugal infections, other blood borne viruses, mycoplasmas, and bacteria. In doing so, alternative health practitioners believe that this permits the immune system to concentrate on fighting the cancer. The protocol consists of blood electrification (a weak [low power / current] form of electroporation) that inactivates the infectivity of blood borne pathogens, treatment using a brief duration pulsed electro magnetic field (PEMF) to kill pathogens within the lymphatic system and similar tissues, the drinking of distilled / demineralized water that has been electrolyzed by a low DC constant current set of 0.9999 pure silver electrodes producing argyria-safe 5 to 10 ppm colloidal silver, and the separate consumption of ozonated water. Ozone is O3 , a form of energized oxygen that is formed either from high voltage (7 to 10 kilovolts) corona plasma discharge energy, or from exposure of oxygen to an intense quartz encapsulated mercury vapor germicidal ultraviolet light source.

Alternative health care providers also combine this Beck Protocol with further herbs, and dietary supplements such as those suggested by Hulda Regehr Clark.

See the related links and questions below.