There is a turf war between those who favor thermography and those who favor mammography for early breast cancer detection. The mammogram party is supported by federal health agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as the mammogram industry. For the most part, the under-supported thermography advocates are outgunned and outnumbered by the mammogram crowd, which has declared a soft, at least for now, war on thermography to restrict or deny its independent breast cancer screening use. Breast cancer cells take around five to eight years to develop enough for mammogram tumor detection. Just in time for costly, profitable treatments. But because of thermography's extreme sensitivity to infrared emissions from slight temperature variations, its images render the earliest signs of breast cancer and/or a pre-cancerous state of the breast.
A study published June 15, 2018, goes beyond anecdotal experiences or theories that indicate vitamin D offers immune boosting protection against minor diseases such as colds, flues, and other respiratory diseases. It also offers protection against cancer. There have been other studies demonstrating vitamin D’s ability to protect against different cancers in the past. This latest study focused on breast cancer, which afflicts women more than any other cancer. The bulk of its focus centered on what serum levels of vitamin D did the most to prevent breast cancer.
The results of a 10,000 plus breast cancer patient prospective (follow-up) study demonstrated that many women can refuse chemotherapy without lowering their survival risk. Dr. Robert Rowen commented on the study via his Facebook page: "This will be significant for some 70,000 American women who otherwise would be placed in a locked train to chemotherapy land. I can't tell you how many women I've seen who were told, immediately after the positive biopsy, that they must get chemotherapy. And they truly suffered." This study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine the same day it was announced at an American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, June 18, 2018, where Dr. Kathy Albain announced: "With results of this groundbreaking study, we now can safely avoid chemotherapy in about 70 percent of patients who are diagnosed with the most common form of breast cancer. For countless women and their doctors, the days of uncertainty are over."
October has been dubbed Breast Cancer Awareness month. The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure are the two most visible fund raising groups for the multi-billion dollar cancer industry. The American Cancer Society teamed with the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca in 1985 to create October as the breast cancer awareness month. AstraZeneca is a major chemotherapy drug manufacturer. The pink ribbon and pinking commercial products gimmick comes from the Komen clan. A small percentage of sales with those “pinked” products goes to contributing toward cancer drug research. Komen's major fund raising efforts include running for the cure, walking for the cure, and other fund raising activities where participants pay for their involvement. The multi-billion dollar cancer industry has been growing for many years now, and it depends on more clients, and NOT finding a cure so new drugs can enter the market. As an alternative to the lucrative cancer drug industry, Ty and Charlene Bollinger's Truth About Cancer events have educated hundreds of thousands of people on real cancer cures, with free online articles and health summits with the world's leading authorities on true cancer research. Mainstream media will not publish this kind of life-saving information, as they are heavily funded by the pharmaceutical and cancer industry. For the first time ever, most of these leaders in the alternative health field are gathering in Dallas, Texas this weekend (Oct. 14-16) for a live-streamed symposium that is offered free to the public.
Did you know that AstraZeneca, manufacturer of two blockbuster breast cancer drugs (one of which is classified as a known human carcinogen), is behind Breast Cancer Awareness Month? Why is it, do you think, that during Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) you never hear the word "carcinogen" mentioned, but are barraged a million times over by the word "cure"? Truth be told, BCAM should be renamed Breast Cancer Un-Awareness Month, as it has nothing to do with generating awareness about the true causes and solutions for the breast cancer epidemic and everything to do with making the public focus on a presumably not-yet-existent "cure" to be produced through the pharmaceutical pipeline somewhere off in the future only after enough money is raised.
As reported in a September, 2015 study in JAMA Internal Medicine article, researchers studied 16,120,349 women over the age of 40 who resided in 547 counties across the U.S. during a one-year period. The researchers correlated their findings with breast cancer incidence and mortality data during the ensuing 10 years. There was no significant change in mortality in those screened with mammography. The authors noted, “Although it has been hoped that screening would allow breast-conserving surgical procedures to replace more extensive mastectomies, we saw no evidence supporting this change.” Clearly we need a better path. What should be happening is that the Powers-That-Be, such as the American Cancer Society and the Komen Foundation, should be promoting research that would identify why one in seven U.S. women have breast cancer instead of promoting a screening test—mammography–that has never been proven to decrease the mortality rate from breast cancer.
Study: Virgin Coconut Oil Reduces Symptoms of Chemo – Improves Quality of Life for Breast Cancer Patients
Once again, research into the health benefits of coconut oil is mainly being done outside of the U.S., primarily in coconut-producing countries. Here in the U.S., only pharmaceutical drugs can make health claims, by law. The FDA regulates all health claims, and only allows pharmaceutical companies that have gone through the lengthy and costly drug approval process to make such claims. No company in the U.S. would spend that kind of money on research for a product found in nature that cannot be patented. A study just published in the journal Lipids in Health and Disease looked at Malaysian women suffering from breast cancer. The study discovered that stage 3 and 4 breast cancer women who supplemented their diet with virgin coconut oil during breast cancer treatment improved fatigue, dyspnea, sleep difficulties, and loss of appetite compared to the control group. Virgin coconut oil consumption during chemotherapy also helped improve the functional status and global Quality Of Life of these breast cancer patients. In addition, it reduced the symptoms related to side effects of chemotherapy.
A study found that women who take thyroid hormone for at least 15 years have 200% increase in the risk of breast cancer as compared to women who did not take thyroid hormone. You read that correctly: a 200% increase risk of breast cancer in women who took thyroid hormone as compared to women who did not take thyroid hormone. How could that be? The answer is simple: The increased breast risk in thyroid supplemented women is due to iodine deficiency.
We have been conditioned to believe that screening mammograms save lives. But do mammograms save lives? Does every woman need to have a yearly screening mammogram starting at age 40 or 50? A recent study can shed some light on whether it is wise to get screened with annual mammography.
Does wearing constrictive bras for long periods of time daily contribute to breast cancer? It does, according to at least 5 research studies and numerous healthcare providers, including oncologists and MD’s. Even some lingerie manufacturers have developed new bra designs hoping to minimize lymphatic constriction and thereby help prevent breast cancer, citing the bra-cancer link for their patents. But bras are not related to cancer according to the American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen Foundation, fund raising giants of the cancer detection and treatment world. They consider the link absurd and unworthy of serious consideration, and unquestionably assume that research showing a link must have some other explanation besides bras. Could shrugging off the bra-cancer link be killing hundreds of thousands of women and wasting billions of dollars in unnecessary detection and treatment?