Sign up for Your
FREE Subscription
Your First Name:
Your E-mail:

Killer Vitamins: Doctors of Spin are at it Again


This Week In HealthBeat News:

  • Killer Vitamins: The Doctors of Spin are At It Again (Dr. Dana Myatt)

  • Superior Medical Care: Would Your Plumber Work This Cheap? (Mark Ziemann, R.N.)
  • CODEX Alimentarius 101: The End of Vitamins Mandated by Dec. 31, 2009
  • Ask Dr. Myatt:  Should I Get a Mammogram?
  • The Medical Insider's Guide to Breast Health
  • Laughter is Good Medicine: More Church Bulletin Bloopers

Killer Vitamins: Doctors of Spin are At It Again

by Dr. Dana Myatt

I reported to you last week that sinister things are afoot in US medicine, including medical studies simply being "dropped" from the archives of medicine if they prove something contrary to Big Pharma. (If you didn't see this issue, visit Sinister Things Afoot and read the story). I also reminded you that CODEX is coming, and it will be the end of public access to anything except the most miniscule doses of nutritional supplements. In order to make this restriction on our health freedom palatable, conventional medicine is "priming" us with pseudo-studies like the new one we see this week proclaiming that "Vitamins Raise Death Risk." Before I explain the sleight-of-hand that accomplished this outrageous "finding," let me remind you who is behind these "results."

Consider the Source

In their ongoing effort to discredit and finally outlaw nutritional supplements and natural medicine, conventional medicine, funded by Big Pharma, has "proven" that nutritional supplements are dangerous. This report was published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). Let's see --- conventional medicine, the same folks who promote dangerous drugs as "safe" and kill, by conservative estimate, 100,000 people per year. (Other credible evidence places this number as high as 700,000 per year).

Have you ever read a copy of JAMA? (Perhaps not, unless you are an inquisitive doctor or you suffer from extreme insomnia). JAMA is funded by millions of dollars worth of drug company advertising. The articles are on thin paper printed in black and white. The drug ads --- most averaging 8-12 pages long --- are on heavy paper with bright colors, cutouts, glitter, holograms, pop-ups and other eye-catching artwork. Because the drug ads are on heavier weight paper and are cut slightly smaller that article pages, every time you open a copy of JAMA, you open to a drug ad. EVERY time. (I've done my own research on this)! These ads are truly amazing, far more spectacular than anything seen in lay magazines. About the only thing I haven't yet seen in a drug ad is scratch-and-sniff, but I'll bet it's coming. OK, so we know who funds JAMA. It's Big Pharma. Now let's talk about the American Medical Association.

For years, The American Medical Association has worked hard to discredit natural medicine. As evidence, they were found guilty in US federal court of engaging in a conspiracy to destroy chiropractic medicine. The AMA would do anything in its power to bring down natural medicine while at the same time strengthening ties to the source of their funding and their entire existence: Big Pharma.

So, the vitamin story is supposed to be "big news"? For all their conflicts of interest, JAMA published a dubious retrospective study stating that vitamins are at best worthless and at worst, lethal. Can we really rely on the Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Industry --- I'm sorry, I mean JAMA --- for honest, scientific reporting where alternative and natural medicine is concerned? Consider the source of this spurious reporting.

Figures Lie and Liars Figure:  How to "Prove" That Supplements are Dangerous

It's not difficult to fake a medical study, or set up a study guaranteed to "prove" the results you want to prove. Heck, Big Pharma has been doing this for years, "proving" that many lethal drugs are "safe and effective"! They've simply done it again, this time in reverse and this time with vitamins. Here's how easy it is to "prove" that vitamin supplements are dangerous or at least worthless, and how this current "pseudo research" was accomplished. You, too, can be a medical researcher if you follow these simple guidelines.

First, set up a study using synthetic forms of vitamins instead of naturally-occurring forms. This guarantees that the substances used in the studies are not the same as those found in nature, and hence, unlikely to work like those found in nature. In the last two decades, for example, studies that "prove" vitamin E is harmful all used synthetic forms of the vitamin. Remember the older study which "proved" that beta carotene increased lung cancer risk in smokers? You guessed it --- synthetic beta carotene. The only thing these studies are proving is that synthetic vitamins, which do not have the same chemical makeup as their natural counter-parts, do not function the same in the body and can be harmful. But these studies do NOT prove that natural vitamins are dangerous. Of course, the public isn't given benefit of this important piece of information.

Why don't any of these conventional medical researchers use the natural forms of vitamins for their studies? I'll give you three guesses, the first two don't count. Because studies using natural vitamins would show what thousands of other studies have shown: vitamins (the same as found in nature) are not only safe, they prevent a multitude of diseases and delay aging.

Second, it is important to hand-pick the results to include in your analysis. Throw out all positive results that would conflict with what you are trying to prove. In this case, toss out 405 studies showing the benefit of vitamins. Next, include any study you can find which suggests a negative effect. Finally, be sure to pick studies where vitamins were used in patients who had only a few weeks to live (as was done in the vitamin E studies). Better yet, do as these "researchers" did and use only the studies where people died. Though no drug or feat of modern medicine would be expected to "save" such patients, you can never-the-less "prove" that vitamins don't either, and are therefore worthless. In fact, since these patients in the study died, you can claim that vitamins are actually lethal. Are you getting the feel for how to be a medical "researcher" yet?

Third, be sure to report results using statistical obfuscation. Since most laymen don't know the difference between relative risk and absolute risk, use whichever method of reporting provides the results you are after.

In the case of vitamins, if 1 person in 1,000 dies without taking vitamins and 1.16 people (0.16 of a person?) in 1,000 dies who did take vitamins, report that the risk was increased by 16% when in fact not a single additional person died from taking synthetic vitamins. On the other hand, if 2 people in 1,000 die of high cholesterol without taking drugs and 1 person in 1,000 dies while all 1,000 are on a Big Pharma offering, report that your drug "slashes the death rate by 100%." Heck, few people understand statistical significance anyway, and these two methods of reporting --- relative and absolute --- will give you a lot of "flexibility" when trying to prove a point.

Are you catching on? Here's a summary in case you want to undertake a study yourself:

Report drug risks as absolute numbers to make the risks appear smaller. This will minimize public concern over side-effects. (Can you say "heart attack, stroke, and Vioxx"? Or "breast cancer and Premarin"? Or "fatal rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown) and Baycol"? All FDA-approved drugs, by the way).

Report vitamin risks as relative numbers to make the risks appear bigger. And be SURE not to tell people that synthetic vitamins were used in the studies, just in case some genius figures out that "natural" and "synthetic" are not the same and makes a nasty stink over it.

  Remember, in a retrospective study (one which chooses other previously-conducted studies and includes them in a report), you can pick and choose which studies to include and which to toss out. If you pick studies which used synthetic vitamins on hopeless patients and make sure you don't include any of the numerous positive studies, your results will be much more convincing. They will also be a total bunch of scientific rubbish, a downright lie and an embarrassment to any true scientist, too. But hey --- this isn't about good science. It's about money. Keep your end result in mind and you won't let the actual scientific facts confuse you.

There IS One Important Take-Home Message About Vitamin Supplements

Every cloud has a silver lining. These studies should remind savvy consumers of one important point: synthetic vitamins are NOT the same as natural vitamins if the molecular structure isn't identical. Synthetic vitamins not identical to the naturally-occurring vitamins. They do NOT have the same health benefits of natural vitamins. Studies have shown this for years, and that's really all this "new" look at old information has "proven." Cheap supplements sold by the pharmaceutical companies and marketed in grocery stores, discount warehouses and your local pharmacy aren't worth their weight in dirt. It is the synthetic offerings of the Big Drug Companies that these studies have shown to be worthless or worse. Taking this kind of junk is worse than not taking anything at all, which is why I recommend only the highest quality natural-source supplements.

Conduct Your Own Study on Vitamin Safety

Here's a way to conduct your own study of vitamins. Survey your friends and find 10 people who are taking Big Pharma's junk vitamins --- you know, the "one little bitty, shellacked, once-per-day" stuff. Take a good look at them. How healthy are they? Not. Studies show that the miniscule doses in these once-per-day supplements are too small to do anything. Besides, most people's digestive systems don't even make it through the shellacked coating! Next, find 10 of your friends who are taking one or more prescription drugs. How healthy are these folks? Leaping tall buildings with a single bound? In the ranks of the super-healthy? Hahaha. Finally, find 10 people who are taking quality supplements regularly and see how they compare to the other two groups. I'm confident you'll discover they are healthier and require a lot less doctoring than their drug and "one-per-day" taking counterparts. Most of them probably CAN leap over tall buildings, or at least large puddles, without breaking a hip, pulling a muscle or losing their balance and being knocked into a coma.

One other thing to consider. How many people do you personally know that have died while being treated for disease with conventional medicine? How many people do you know who have died from taking vitamin supplements?

As long as conventional medicine is funded by Big Pharma, and conflicts of interest run rampant, don't expect to get honest medical and scientific reporting from JAMA, the American Medical Association, the FDA or any other multi-alphabetical group that depends on pharmaceutical company money for their very existence.

A Parting Thought

Okay-dokay then. Vitamins are dangerous and even lethal, and drugs make people healthy. It must be true, it was published in JAMA and reported by the American media. Of course, we all know lots of really healthy people who take drugs and lots of people who have died taking vitamins. I hope I don't bust a gut laughing and require something that conventional medicine does fairly well --- emergency surgery for a ruptured organ!

Superior Medical Care: Would Your Plumber Work This Cheap?

by Mark Ziemann, R.N.

[Dr. Myatt's Note: The following commentary is a continuation of Nurse Mark's Poor, Poor Pitiful Me: Why Some People Will Never Get Well from last weeks HealthBeat News. If you haven't read this article, please review it first to see what has gotten my mild-mannered Nurse in such a tizzy.]

As I mentioned in last week's HealthBeat, we get plenty of letters here, some of which take us to task for having "such expensive fees" and telling us all about how the writer could never afford to spend such amounts of money. Well, let's look at fees for a bit, and see just where all the money goes.

To evaluate the subject of Dr. Myatt's fees, you need to know what goes into a usual visit. Someone will contact either Dr. Myatt or me, or another member of the Wellness Club team, and enquire about arranging a consultation. We almost never have people contact us when they are well, asking for advice on how best to stay well, or to cancer-proof themselves, or to make sure that they don't risk developing heart disease. Nooo, folks come to us when they are sick, and usually when they are ~really, really~ sick and when conventional medicine has failed them. So, the first concern is usually to be able to get these folks scheduled as soon as possible - this almost always means re-booking and putting off other, less serious patients: shuffling schedules, and often giving up our lunch hours to work people in on short notice. This can mean hours of work, just re-arranging schedules!

Next, we send out Dr. Myatt's package of New Patient Intake forms to be filled out and returned, along with all available medical records, history, labs, and other information. We always ask that this information be returned to us well in advance of the consultation appointment time: the reason for this is that we want to have as much time as possible to study the information - after all, these are often volumes of information, from "Big Guns" places like Mayo or Johns Hopkins and others, all of whom have often failed to sort out the person's problems successfully. The team here at the Wellness Club needs some time to go through all this information - called "case review" - and then we need the time to assemble and research the clues that we glean from these records and from the New Patient Intake Forms. It is rare for us to put less than an entire half-day into this research - more commonly we have eight, ten, or a dozen hours into review, study, and research before Dr. Myatt even has her first hour-long telephone consultation with a new patient! (Hint: I have worked in conventional medicine for twenty years and have NEVER seen a doctor study patient records for hours --- or even at all --- before their first patient visit. I don't believe it happens).

Then there's the actual "visit," where Dr. Myatt talks to the patient for an hour on the telephone, asks questions, gets crystal clear on "just what's going on," clarifies points from the medical records and makes detailed notes. She then emails the patient their preliminary recommendations and provides a lot of patient education (for those who want to understand the "whys and wherefores" of their recommendations). Following this, she will spend anywhere from several hours to several days doing more research, formulating a detailed plan and recommendations, and sending this information to her patient by email and by regular mail. She is also available to her patients by email to answer brief follow-up questions: the questions may be brief, but often the answers are very time-consuming indeed, requiring yet more study and research.

Remember, if these were simple uncomplicated cases we probably wouldn't be dealing with them - these folks usually come to Dr. Myatt as the "doctor of last resort" when conventional medicine has failed them.

So, how much time is involved in an "average" new patient visit? (And there are no "average patients - each person is unique, individual, and special!) An average of six hours or so of case study, review, and research before the hour-long consultation, and perhaps an average of another six hours or so of study and research and creation of an individualized plan and set of recommendations following the phone consultation if the case is straightforward. For those with "incurable diseases," the time spent may be much longer. Then there are the follow-up emails... But let's say, most conservatively,  that there is an average of 12 hours of time in each New Patient Visit.

Let's pretend for a moment that we don't have to cover any expenses like phones, or electricity, or heat, or computers or office supplies or postage. Let's take Dr. Myatt's new patient fee of $495, deduct the Wellness Club Membership of $35 that is included in that for every new patient, and divide those 12 hours into the $460 that remains: it works out to a little more than $38 per hour, to be divided amongst Dr. Myatt and the team here at the Wellness Club. Yikes! It's a good thing that we also write, and teach, and lecture for our livelihood!

Would your plumber work that cheaply? How about your auto mechanic? Or your tax accountant? What about your lawyer, when you call him to "get you off" on that speeding ticket? None of these professionals are dealing with your health, or what in many cases for us are life-and-death issues, and yet I seriously doubt that any of them would work for you for so little. Yet we do that here, day after day, and we are happy to do it because we know that we are an option of last resort for people who have been failed by conventional medicine. This is what we trained for, and this is what makes us feel that all those years spent training and learning were worth it, and what makes us satisfied that all those hours of study and research have paid off - we are helping people find health, even when others can't. We are your "medical detective team" and we will not let go of your problem until we have a solution. We will not "write you off" because your case is "too complicated" or "too hard." There are no "hopeless cases" in our office, only "difficult cases."

So, could we do all this for less money? Of course we could! Just not for very long. And then where would we be? Working for someone else, filling out insurance forms and pushing prescriptions, certainly for better pay. But we wouldn't have the satisfaction of helping people find health when they are at the end of their rope or been given up on by conventional medicine. We wouldn't know the exhilaration of watching so many lives turned around in a new and healthy direction. We wouldn't sleep as well at night. And we wouldn't be here for you when you need a medical team to put hours if not days of thought into your health and wellbeing.

Considering all this, I believe Dr. Myatt's fees are a smokin' bargain (new patient fees will be going up soon, at this will still be an incredible bargain). Anyone would be lucky to have their plumber work this cheap.

And that brings me to next week's note, "why don't you guys do insurance?"

Nurse Mark

CODEX Alimentarius 101:
The End of Vitamins Mandated by Dec. 31, 2009

A reader writes, "Have you heard that the plan is STILL ON to implement CODEX ALIMENTARIUS standards in the U.S. in 2009? Do you know if this is true? How MANY times do we have to fight this dragon?"

Christen, I'm afraid this is true. Codex is scheduled to be fully in place by Dec. 31, 2009. There is no doubt about this and it is not speculation. This means that your ability to buy supplements will be gone by this date. Here's the "short course":

Codex Alimentarius is a worldwide trade (not medical, but trade) standard set forth by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that will outlaw vitamins, minerals and herbs in all but minute doses. While most of America is either sleeping or disbelieving that such a thing could happen, CODEX is fully on track and will be mandated by the end of 2009. Approximately 5,000 safe nutrients and herbs that have been on the market for decades will be banned. Other nutrients will be restricted to multi-vitamins containing no more than 100 percent of the established RDA amounts, which are usually useless, trivial quantities -- and they'll be far more expensive than what we have now.

Rima Laibow, M.D. explains, "CODEX ALIMENTARIUS is a UN-sponsored global food standards body that is deceptively promoted as 'consumer protection.' Based on junk science (by wrongly treating nutrients as toxins), it is a serious threat to your health and health freedom. CODEX ALIMENTARIUS serves the financial interests of massive multi-national corporations who are illegally pushing to implement CODEX ALIMENTARIUS in the United States of America." This monster was created by the United Nations in 1940 and we have been moving toward full implementation ever since.

The war on Natural Health care - Drug companies & FDA unite!

Here is a 28-minute online documentary (video) that you should watch,
The war on Natural Health care - Drug companies & FDA unite! . This documentary explains that a secret war is going on in every country and it is not the war on terrorism - Drug companies & groups like the FDA have combined efforts to systemically eliminate the world of natural health products to ensure dependence on pharmaceuticals - its happening right now thanks to the United Nations 'Codex' Plan to regulate natural health care world wide. So this will mean your normal vitamin C will require a prescription and without this purchasing will be illegal - we must stop this.

If you are able to watch this on your computer, DO NOT MISS THIS VIDEO. You need to
understand what this is about and what you can do to stop it. It's not too late, but
it will take a MASSIVE GRASSROOTS EFFORT to derail what is already scheduled to take

What You MUST DO If You Value Your Health Freedom

Passage of CODEX for the US is already a "done deal" unless something happens to derail it. This will take a MASSIVE GRASSROOTS effort on the part of Americans. How can you help move this grassroots effort forward?

Here in HealthBeat we will continue to explain this mess and the dangerous implications it holds --- not just for health freedom, but for American freedom and sovereignty in general --- in future editions. We are trying to take the morass of information, which is too complicated for most people read all the way through (and that's just how the "Big Boys" want it), and break it down into understandable, digestible "bites." We are also putting together a grassroots petition that still has the potential to stop this runaway train IF our numbers are sufficient and IF we get it to the right people in time.

What Can One Person (YOU!) Do?

I.) Watch for a complete explanation of CODEX within the next few weeks in HealthBeat. We are going to have a special section of the website devoted entirely to this deadly plague. Watch the videos we post and read the descriptions in order to fully educate yourself.

II.) Forward HealthBeat to as many friends and family as you can and encourage them to subscribe. The more people that are signed up for this newsletter, the more people will be fully aware of CODEX and it's deadly implications.

III.) Take action! Don't worry, if you are subscribed to HealthBeat News, we will keep you fully informed on what to do and when to do it. From there on, it's up to you.

If we do not collectively take this threat seriously, the laws will change while we are sleeping. By then, it will be too late to repeal them, since these are INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS that we are selling ourselves out to. Let's not let complacency or ignorance allow us to give up our hard-won freedoms, health and otherwise.  --- Dr. Myatt

Ask Dr. Myatt: Should I Get a Mammogram?

Question: Hi! I am curious to know about your concerns about mammograms-it is time for mine and if it is not necessary I will not put myself through the expense, time or stress of that test this year. I also want to thank you for your newsletter, I am enjoying reading
it --- mostly the article in the recent one --- the patient [customer] that you bend over backwards for is always the one who comes back to bite you!!  As far as history for the mammogram, I am 48 with no history of cancer, in good health, exercise, take vitamins and 5 htp for mood regulating and blood press. meds. If you need any more info let me know-if this is too personal to answer without a consultation that is okay too! Have a great day.
--- Cindi

Dr. Myatt's Answer:

Hi Cindi: Good question! This should be on the minds of any woman over age 40. If it isn't, it only means that some women accept the conventional recommendation for yearly mammograms "wholesale" without questioning their safely and value.

Here's the "catch" in my ability to answer. Did you know that doctors cannot give an opinion that differs from the accepted "standard of care" without risking their medical license? That's right --- I have to tell you the "going line," which may or may not be the truth as I see it, or I may end up digging ditches instead of treating patients. (On some days, that doesn't sound too bad!). This is a fine commentary on our current medical system and American freedom in general, don't you agree?

So, I can't tell you what YOU or any woman should do concerning mammograms. Instead, I'll tell you what I DO and plan to continue to do regarding mammograms and breast cancer prevention. Remember, this isn't advice to you, it's just what I have decided to do based on my constant and in-depth research on this subject. ;-)

First, let's remember that mammograms are NOT breast cancer prevention --- they are early detection. I am writing an in-depth report on true breast cancer prevention, which I personally follow, but which is too involved to go into in a newsletter. I'll touch on this a bit in just a minute and I will make a formal announcement in HealthBeat News when this white paper is ready. I hope every female subscriber and every male who loves a female will get a copy of this document and read it carefully when it is available. There is a huge amount of evidence that 70-90% of all cancers including breast cancer are actually preventable, and I don't mean "early detection," I mean true prevention.

Here are some interesting facts concerning mammograms. Make of them what you will.

1.) Mammorgrams have never been proven useful for saving lives in women under 50. You read that right. Most countries in the world do NOT recommend screening for women under 50 based on the evidence. X-rays to the breasts of women under 50 appear to be especially dangerous. We waffle about our recommendation to women under 50 in the US, but most of the rest of the world is clear. Mammograms are of no value and in fact may be dangerous to women under 50. Under 50, the breasts are much more susceptible to mutations caused by mammograms. Further, mammograms miss a full 25% of all cancers in this age group. Last but not least, screening in this age group, followed for nearly two decades, has not been shown to decrease mortality from breast cancer. Women under age 50 who get regular mammograms are at higher risk from breast cancer than those who don't get mammograms. It looks like screening for women age 40-49 has more to do with US financial interests than the health interests of women.

2.) Mammograms may not even save lives in women 50-69 years of age. Again, there is a great deal of controversy in the medical literature about ANY benefit from mammograms, although conventional medicine sticks to the story that "mammograms save lives." Here's the part they aren't telling: mammograms find many small DCIS tumors (ductal carcinoma in situ), very few of which would ever become life-threatening at any age. Further, a number of important statistics have been removed from the "mammograms save lives" reports. (See my above article on "How to Prove [anything] with statistics..."). As you'll learn in the upcoming white paper, one of the "stats" removed from the total of cancer deaths is the number of women who die within the first month of breast cancer surgery. This is counted as a "surgical" death, but the death would not have occurred if the woman didn't have surgery for cancer in the first place. There are other statistical sleights-of-hand like this that help "massage" the numbers and make them look favorable. My behind the scenes look shows a very different story.

3.) Mammograms may not save lives in women over 69 years old. Again, controversy abounds. But there is ample evidence to show that mammograms do not decrease the mortality rate from breast cancer in women over age 69. I can't tell anyone what to do on this score, but I can tell you that my own mother is age 84, my mom-in-law is 78 and I DO NOT recommend mammograms for either of them.

4.) The detection rate for breast cancer has soared since the widespread use of mammograms, but the death rate from breast cancer has remained stable (not decreased). There is more than a little evidence to suggest that the increase in breast cancer is
due in large part to the repetitive radiation of mammography, NOT just to early detection.
A number of studies have shown that women who have mammograms suffer nearly identical rates of death due to breast cancer as women who do not have mammograms.

Dr. Myatt's Note: If the increase of breast cancer was due solely to "early detection," the death rate from breast cancer should have dropped dramatically. It hasn't.

5.) Radiation is known to cause breast cancer. Not just mammograms, but diagnostic radiation of every kind. Mammograms are radiation targeted directly to the breast. If conventional recommendations are followed, mammograms represent YEARLY radiation to the breast. I repeat: radiation is a known cause of cancer. A mammogram delivers about 6.5 times more radiation than a chest x-ray. There is strong evidence that radiation also increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. 

6.) Rough handling of the breast can spread an already-existent tumor by rupturing the tumor's blood supply. Any woman who has had a mammogram knows just how tightly the breasts are compressed during the exam. Medical students are taught to examine breasts carefully so as not to damage (spread) a tumor if present, but we annually smash and severely compress the breasts during a mammogram. Go figure.

7.) Mammograms often miss the diagnosis. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 25% of cancers are missed by mammograms in women in their 40's; 10% are missed in women in their 50's. This "negative mammogram" can give a false sense of security to a large number of women. Also note that the US has double the number of "recall procedures" and biopsies as the UK but our detection rates are the same. Wassup with that? Sounds like the US technique for taking and reading mammograms is not-so-hot-so.

From a recent patient file, Ms. S., age 43, has been having annual mammograms since age 40. When she complained of breast pain, they did an additional mammogram which was negative. Later, another mammogram showed "something," which was followed by a negative biopsy. In other words, everything was clear. Ten months later, a walnut-sized mass appeared. It is cancerous, and has already spread to the lymph nodes. So much for mammography's "early detection" abilities in women under 50.

Bottom Line: I can't make any recommendations that goes against the "standard of medicine." All I can tell you is that I had one mammogram at age 40 and I doubt I will ever have another if I live to be 120 based on my extensive research of this subject. Instead, I practice true breast cancer prevention and utilize alternate methods of early detection.

Watch for my upcoming white paper, "The Medical Insider's Guide to Breast Health: What You Should Know About Breast Cancer Prevention and Early Detection but Will NEVER be Told by Your Conventional Doctor." All fully explained and scientifically referenced, of course. This should allow you sufficient information to make up your own mind and see through the enormous deception of conventional medicine's "sale" of a dangerous procedure of dubious value. But, I can't tell you not to get a mammogram...

Cindi: one final note. You and I are the same age. You have high blood pressure for which you take drugs? You are quite young to have high blood pressure (any age is too high in my book). More importantly, "normal" blood pressure patients who are only normal because they are medicated are still at a much higher risk of blood pressure-related diseases, another "factoid" that Big Pharma and Big Medicine fail to mention. If I were you, I'd have a "health optimization" consultation with me and get your health in top-notch shape before you have any other medical problems! Prevention is always safer and surer than trying to cure a disease. :-)

**** Coming This Month ****


The Medical Insider's Guide to Total Breast Health

Ninety percent of all breast cancers are considered preventable. Even in women with a genetic tendency toward breast cancer (less than 10% of all breast cancers), there are known ways to "shut off" the breast cancer gene. This medical whitepaper (as mentioned above) contains ALL the information (too much to print in a newsletter) you need to  practice true breast cancer prevention and decrease your risk by 90%. I also detail how, why and when to have breast cancer screenings, with tests that are safer and far more reliable than mammograms. Even if you opt for mammography, there are ways to make the test safer and more reliable.

Much of this information will surprise you, because it isn't the "garden variety" stuff you'll find by searching the internet yourself. Instead, it has been pulled from "hush-hush" medical conferences (the ones that doctors don't tell their colleagues they are attending because the information discussed is "beyond mainstream"), dredged from deep in the medical journal archives, taken from international conferences of physicians who discuss the "real" consensus opinions (the ones that don't make mainstream media because they don't further the cause of conventional Big Medicine), and more. And the entire report is completely referenced, so you can check the information for yourself. (Independent thinking allowed and encouraged)!

The anticipated release date is the end of this month, and I will email all HealthBeat News subscribers as soon as this report is available. I should think that everyone with a pair of breasts (even men get breast cancer) will want to know the "inside scoop" that conventional medicine isn't telling us about breast cancer prevention and diagnosis. Stay tuned.

Laughter is Good Medicine: More Church Bulletin Bloopers

Thank God for church ladies without spell checkers!  These sentences actually appeared in church bulletins or were announced in church services.
Bertha Belch, a missionary from Africa, will be speaking tonight at Calvary Methodist. Come hear Bertha Belch all the way from Africa.
PRAYER & FASTING Conference: "The cost for attending the Fasting and Prayer Conference includes meals."
The sermon this morning: "Jesus Walks on the Water." The sermon tonight: "Searching for Jesus."
Our youth basketball team is back in action on Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. in the recreation hall. Come out and watch us kill Christ the King.
Ladies, don't forget the rummage sale. It's a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Don't forget your husbands.
The peacemaking meeting scheduled for today has been canceled due to a conflict.
Smile at someone who is hard to love. Say "Hell" to someone who doesn't care much about you.
Don't let worry kill you off -- let the Church help.
Miss Charlene Mason sang "I will not pass this way again," giving obvious pleasure to the congregation.
For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs.
Next Thursday there will be tryouts for the choir. They need all the help they can get.
Barbara remains in the hospital and needs blood donors for more transfusions. She is also having trouble sleeping and requests tapes of Pastor Jack's sermons.
The Rector will preach his farewell message after which the choir will sing: "Break Forth Into Joy."
Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the church. So ends a friendship that began in their school days.
A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall. Music will follow.
At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be "What Is Hell?" Come early and listen to our choir practice.
Eight new choir robes are currently needed due to the addition of several new members and to the deterioration of some older ones.
Scouts are saving aluminum cans, bottles and other items to be recycled. Proceeds will be used to cripple children.
Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased person you want remembered.
Attend and you will hear an excellent speaker and heave a healthy lunch.
The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment and gracious hostility.
Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM - prayer and medication to follow.
The ladies of the Church have cast off clothing of every kind. They maybe seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.
This evening at 7 PM there will be a hymn sing in the park across from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.
Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10 am. All ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B.S. is done.
The pastor would appreciate it if the ladies of the congregation would lend him their electric girdles for the pancake breakfast next Sunday.
Low Self-esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 p.m. Please use the back door.
The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare's Hamlet in the Church basement Fri day at 7 p.m. The congregation is invited to attend this tragedy.
The Weight Watchers Group will meet at 7 p.m. at the First Presbyterian Church. Please use the large double door at the side entrance.
The Associate Minister unveiled the church's new tithing campaign slogan last Sunday: "I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours"

Your in Health and Humor,

Dr. Myatt


Should I Get a Mammogram?

1.) The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med. 2002 Sep 3;137(5 Part 1):305-12. Summary: 11-16 years of regular mammograms, breast exams and recommended screenings did not reduce breast cancer in women ages 40-49. This study was done on over 50,000 women.
2.) Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Sep 20;92(18):1490-9. CONCLUSION: In women aged 50-59 years, the addition of annual mammography screening to physical examination has no impact on breast cancer mortality. This study was based on nearly 40,000 women over a 13-year course.

3.) Screening mammography for elderly women. Cancer Pract. 2001 May-Jun;9(3):128-33. Summary (one of my favorites!). "Although there is little direct scientific evidence to support (or to disavow) the benefits of mammography screening for elderly women... " the authors never-the-less recommend mammography for women up to age 80. In the conclusion of this review they state, "The lack of direct evidence should not be interpreted as evidence against the use of screening mammography..."
4.) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. JAMA. 2003 Oct 22;290(16):2129-37. CONCLUSIONS: Recall (additional testing required) and negative open surgical biopsy rates are twice as high in US settings than in the United Kingdom but cancer detection rates are similar.
5.) From the NIH (National Institutes of Health) website

Detection does not always mean saving lives: Even though mammography can detect tumors as small as 1 centimeter (about 1/4 inch) in diameter, detecting a small tumor does not guarantee that a woman's life will be saved. Mammography may not help a woman with a fast-growing tumor that has already spread to distant parts of the body before being detected. In, addition, about 50 percent of women with mammography-detected breast cancer would not have died from breast cancer even if they had waited until a palpable lump appeared, because their tumors are slow growing and more treatable.

False Negatives: Because the breasts of younger women contain many glands and ligaments that appear dense on a mammogram, it is sometimes more difficult to spot tumors in the breasts of younger women. As women age, breast tissues become more fatty and tumors are more easily "seen" by mammography. Also, tumors tend to grow faster in younger women than in older women. They therefore appear more likely to grow between the scheduled mammograms. About 25 percent of breast tumors are missed in women in their 40s compared with 10 percent of tumors for women in their 50s.

False Positives: Between 5 percent and 10 percent of mammograms are abnormal. Of those in younger women that are followed up with additional testing, (another mammogram, fine needle aspiration, ultrasound, or biopsy) most will not be cancer.

Increased Cases of DCIS:
Over the past 30 years, mammography has been able to detect a higher proportion of small tissue abnormalities called ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS), abnormal cells confined to the milk ducts of the breast. (The number of DCIS cases increased from 742 to 4,676 from l983 to l993.) Some believe that many of these tumors are not life-threatening, while others think that some will eventually metastasize. Because there are few data to strongly support either view, these abnormalities are commonly removed surgically.

Inside HealthBeat

Meet Our Team
Contact Us
Readers Rants


DISCLAIMER: Consuming the information provided in HealthBeat may cause reduced side-effects, increased knowledge, improved health and well-being and the potential for enhanced common-sense. Use at your own risk. These statements have not been evaluated or blessed by the FDA, The Big Drug Companies, or Big Medicine and are not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or medical condition. None of the suggestions made herein are intended to take the place of your personal physician, shaman, chiropractor or other healthcare provider. Please be aware that statements made herein could result in a loss of profits to the FDA, Big Pharma and Big Medicine and should be used cautiously with this in mind. These statements contain no appreciable amounts of calories, carbohydrates, sodium or cholesterol and are certified to be free of all trans-fats.