Killer Vitamins: Doctors of Spin are at it Again
This Week In HealthBeat
Killer Vitamins: The Doctors of Spin are
At It Again (Dr. Dana Myatt)
- Superior Medical Care: Would Your Plumber
Work This Cheap? (Mark
- CODEX Alimentarius 101: The End of
Vitamins Mandated by Dec. 31, 2009
- Ask Dr. Myatt: Should I Get a
- The Medical Insider's Guide to Breast
- Laughter is Good Medicine: More Church
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?"
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
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! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVtqTQEQsA8
. 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
understand what this is about and what you can do to stop it. It's not too late,
it will take a MASSIVE GRASSROOTS EFFORT to derail what is already scheduled to
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.
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
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 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.
due in large part to the repetitive radiation of mammography, NOT just to early
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
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
Thank God for church ladies
without spell checkers!
These sentences actually appeared in church bulletins or were announced in
Bertha Belch, a missionary from
Africa, will be speaking tonight at Calvary
Methodist. Come hear Bertha Belch all the way from
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
Next Thursday there will be tryouts for the choir. They need all the help they
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
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
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
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
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"
Health and Humor,
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.
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.