The Official Web site of the State of Indiana - one page on fish
the Indiana State Department of Health serves to promote,
protect and provide for the public health of the people in Indiana.
Table of Contents http://www.in.gov/isdh/dataandstats/fish/fish_2001/parasite.htm
PARASITES AND TUMORS IN FISH
Anglers sometimes catch fish which contain worms, grubs, cysts, or nodules in the flesh. When cleaning fish, anglers may notice worms in or around the intestines of the fish, or fungus growths on the skin, fins, or gills. These parasites of fish are a normal part of the ecosystem in which the fish lives. While not esthetically pleasing, the edible portions containing parasites, if properly and thoroughly cooked, do not present a health hazard.
Some of the most commonly seen parasites of fish are black spots, yellow grubs, and tapeworms. Most fish have parasites, and they seldom affect the well being of the fish except under unusual conditions. Parasites in fish are only a problem when fish are not thoroughly cooked or are eaten raw.
Black spot is caused by a parasite called a fluke, which burrows into the skin of fish. The black pigment (about pinhead size) forms in the tissue surrounding the fluke and is a reaction of the fish caused by the parasite. The fluke itself is actually a whitish color.
Yellow grubs are also caused by a fluke, which penetrates the skin of fish and curls up into a sac under the skin or in the muscle where it grows to be the grub. The grubs are often found in the flesh of fish near the dorsal fins. When freed from the sac, the grub may be up to 2-inch long.
Young tapeworms are common in the organs and body cavity of many fish. They usually live in the internal organs of the fish. They resemble long, thin ribbons about 1/16-inch wide.
Occasionally, anglers catch fish with external growths, tumors, sores, or other lesions. Such abnormalities generally result from viral or bacterial infections. Abnormalities in the liver or intestines are sometimes seen in tolerant fish such as White Suckers and Brown Bullheads, and can be caused by parasites or tumors. Concern about the potential effects of these diseases on the fish themselves, and the possible role of pollution in causing tumors in some coarse fish, has prompted ongoing investigations into these abnormalities. Growths on game fish caused by viruses include lymphocystis, dermal sarcoma, and lymphosarcoma.
Viruses infect fish skin through contact with infected fish during the spring spawning run, forming pale or white cauliflower-like growths. Lymphocystis does not kill affected fish, and tagging studies have shown that these fish can lose the growths by the following spring. There is no known health risk from consuming an infected fish once it has been skinned and cooked.
Dermal sarcoma, another viral disease affecting walleye, is caused by viruses which infect cells and cause growths just under the skin. These growths can be removed by skinning the fish.
The appearance of viral or bacterial infections in fish may be unsightly, but there is no evidence to suggest that these infections pose a threat to consumers of infected fish.
Farmed Salmon Threaten Wild Fish by Spreading Lice
From Grist Magazine <www.grist.org
March 30, 2005LICE AGE
Farmed salmon infect wild stocks with sea lice, study finds
A new study of wild and farmed salmon in the Pacific Northwest reveals that farmed salmon breed parasitic sea lice that infect juvenile wild salmon swimming nearby and could affect stocks of other important commercial species. A Canadian research trio looked at some 5,500 young salmon as they swam through a narrow channel past a salmon farm, and they recorded unnaturally high rates of lice infestation as the small fish migrated through a cloud of lice stretching nearly 19 miles around the farm, which itself is only about one-eighth of a mile. "Conservatively, this means that the parasite footprint of the farm is 150 times larger than the farm itself," said study coauthor John Volpe. But the troublesome parasites aren't the only nasties to come out of fish farms; a study in the journal Science last year found more cancer-causing PCBs in farmed fish than in their wild-caught counterparts, and in Europe, chemicals used to control the parasites and dye the salmon pink have led enviros to encourage boycotts of farm-raised salmon. straight to the source:
The New York Times, Cornelia Dean, 30 Mar 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4674 straight to the source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, John Heilprin, 30 Mar 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4675
Women's Hands Cleaner Than Men, Study Says
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer Wed Sep 21, 2:40 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Men are dirtier than women. So scientists confirmed by spying in public restrooms, watching as one-quarter of men left without washing their hands.
The worst offenders were at an Atlanta Braves game.
In contrast, 90 percent of the women did wash up.
Wednesday's results mark the American Society of Microbiology's latest look at how many people take what is considered the single easiest step to staying healthy: spending 20 seconds rubbing with soap under the faucet.
It also explains why these infection experts tend to use paper towels to open bathroom doors. There is no telling what germs the person before you left on the knob.
"It's a gamble," said microbiologist Judy Daly of Primary Children's Medical Center in Salt Lake City, the society's secretary.
Back in 1996, the society first studied how often people follow mom's advice to always wash up after using the toilet. Researchers lingered in public restrooms, putting on makeup or combing their hair, while surreptitiously counting. They concluded about one-third of people did not wash.
The group sponsored an education campaign about how hand-washing can stop the spread of flu, diarrhea and other infectious diseases. Every few years, researchers repeat the spying.
This time, 83 percent of people washed, reported Harris Interactive, a research company that last month monitored more than 6,300 public restroom users for the society.
That is a little better overall. But take a closer look:
_The worst hygiene was at Atlanta's Turner Field baseball stadium, where 37 percent of men left the bathroom without washing, and 16 percent of the women did.
_New York's Penn Station had the biggest gender disparity, where 64 percent of men washed their hands compared with 92 percent of women. Grand Central Station was almost as bad.
_The best hygiene was at San Francisco's Ferry Terminal Farmers Market and Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry and Shedd Aquarium, where only about 12 percent of people left without washing.
People exaggerate about hygiene. A Harris telephone survey of 1,000 more adults found 91 percent insisted they wash in public restrooms. Additionally, 77 percent claimed to always wash before handling or eating food, and 32 percent after coughing or sneezing.
It is hard to double-check the latter claims. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says poor hand-washing contributes to almost half of all foodborne disease outbreaks.
With influenza season approaching, microbiologists warn that it is easy to catch a cold or the flu by shaking hands with someone who just used that hand to cover a sneeze. The viruses can stay alive for two hours on hands, and for 20 minutes on hard, dry surfaces those germy hands touch.
So sneeze into your elbow instead and wash frequently. There is no need for special anti-bacterial cleansers, Daly said, although alcohol-based hand gels can substitute when soap's not available.
On the Net:
Microbiologists' clean hands info: http://www.washup.org
Fact Sheet on Hazards of Hormone Implants or Injections in Beef
This is Your Beef on Drugs:
The Health and Environmental Risks of Hormones in Meat
Fact Sheet from Friends of the Earth <www.foe.org>
Hormones in our food supply?
Since the early 1970s, hormones have been used extensively in the production
of beef and milk in the United States, with hormone development research
starting as far back as the 1950s[i] <#1> . As many as two-thirds of
cattle raised in the U.S are treated with these hormones[ii] <#2> .
Although growing numbers of consumers and scientists have expressed concerns
about potential human health risks of this practice, the USDA and FDA have
approved the use of six hormone growth promotants (HGPs) in the cultivation
of beef cattle, and one more hormone used to increase milk productivity[iii]
<#3> [iv] <.#4> . Only a few other countries have approved the use
of HGPs, while many others have banned their use.
The hormones are implanted or injected into cattle in various stages of
maturity, but are not allowed in calves[v] <#5> . Hormones used in beef
cattle include the male hormone testosterone and its synthetic equivalent
trenbolone acetate, and the female hormone progesterone including three
synthetic derivatives zeranol , 17 beta-estradiol, and melengestrol acetate
(MGA). All HGPs are either implanted or injected into the cows except
melengestrol which is a feed additive.
Illegal Hormone Use in the Veal Industry
The veal industry has recently been found guilty of using banned hormones in
growing up to 90% of its veal calves and this has reportedly been common
practice for decades[vi] <#6> . These hormones include all six HGPs
approved for use in adult cattle, namely testosterone, progesterone,
trenbolone acetate, 17 beta-estradiol, zeranol, and MGA but they have never
been approved for calves. The safety or side effects of injecting calves
with hormones intended for heifers and steers over 700 lbs has never been
evaluated, but it is suspected that these hormones may be metabolized
differently in the young calf's body which could lead to greater amounts of
hormones consumed by people who eat veal.
Hormones and Cancer
The European Union (EU) has banned the importation of American and Canadian
beef grown with the use any growth hormone, including 17 beta-estradiol
because studies have shown that it is a "complete carcinogen." [vii] <#7>
This synthetic form of progesterone shares similar characteristics with a
class of other molecules called endocrine disruptors that imitate other
human hormones in the body and have been linked to diseases such as cancer.
Zeranol, another progesterone-imitator, has also been linked to cancer in a
recent study done at Ohio State University. Scientists exposed breast
cancer cells to zeranol-treated beef. The results indicated significant
increases in cancer growth some showed an increase even with zeranol
levels 30 times below the level the FDA considers safe[viii] <#8> . It
should also be noted that the FDA does not permit any residual MGA to show
up in beef residue testing[ix] <#9> . It is considered a suspected
carcinogen by the USDA[x] <#10> .
Hormones in the Environment
With tons of hormones injected into beef and veal cattle, many of these
hormones end up in farm run-off in the form of solid and liquid waste.
Sanitary waste treatment is seldom found on factory farms, and many farms
simply have waste settling ponds that are easily flooded. Hormones can then
flow into nearby rivers and streams, as well as underground aquifers,
eventually ending up in drinking water. Endocrine-disruptor expert Ana Soto
concluded that hormone levels in water run-off found in one downstream study
"would be sufficient to produce a significant effect on target cells" and
her study¹s findings "point to the need to take steps to curtail
environmental degradation caused by the release of these chemicals into
bodies of water[xi] <#_edn11> ." A study done by a EPA fresh-water research
facility in Duluth, MN found that female fish exposed to trenbolone in water
developed bumps on their heads normally only witnessed in male fish when
their natural testosterone levels were elevated. There was a general
pattern where female fish were slightly masculinized and male fish slightly
feminized by trenbolone exposure[xii] <#12> .
The reproductive impacts observed in fish raise concerns that hormones used
in beef and consumed by people might be a factor in rising incidence of
premature development in girls[xiii] <#13> and lower sperm counts in
men[xiv] <#14> .
Given the potential of growth hormones to act as carcinogens and as
reproductive toxins, combined with the demonstrated downstream effects of
hormone run-off from feed lots, Friends of the Earth recommends that people
seek organic or hormone-free beef, or beef alternatives. These are the
surest ways of avoiding consuming unwanted additives in your beef.
Locations of providers of free-range, organic meats may be found at the
website, www.eatwellguide.org <http://www.eatwellguide.org/> , or at many
local natural food stores or cooperatives.
[i] <#1> "A Primer on Beef Hormones." USDA-FAS.
[ii] <#2> Raloff, Janet. "Hormones: Here's the Beef." Science News
Online. January 5, 2002.
[iii] <#3> "Part I: Baseline Reference of Feed lot Management
Practices, 1999", USDA-APHIS
[iv] <#4> "rbST Info Sheet", USDA-APHIS.
[v] <#5> "Veal Producers Told to Halt Hormones." The Associated
Press, April 2, 2004.
[vi] <#6> Weise, Elizabeth. "Growth hormones in veal spark debate."
USAToday, April 1 2004.
[vii] <#7> "Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary
Measures Relating to Public Health, Review of previous
SCVPH opinions of 30 April 1999 and 3 May 2000 on the potential risks to
human health from hormone residues from bovine meat and meat products,"
European Commission, Health and Consumer Directorate, April 10, 2002.
[viii] <#8> "Link Eyed Between Beef And Cancer." CBS News, May 20,
[ix] <#9> "Tolerance for Residue of Melengestrol Acetate." Code of
Federal Regulations. 21CFR556.380
[x] <#10> USDA Food Safety Inspection Service testing document for
MGA. Accessed August 2004. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPHS/clg/clg-mga.02.pdf
[xi] <#11> Soto, Ana M., et al. "Androgenic and
Estrogenic Activity in Water Bodies Receiving Cattle Feedlot
Effluent in Eastern Nebraska, USA" Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol
112. No 3. March 2004 http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2003/6590/6590.pdf
[xii] <#12> Raloff, Janet. "Hormones: Here's the Beef." Science
News Online. January 5, 2002.
[xiii] <#13> Lemonick, Michael D. "Teens before Their Time," TIME
Magazine, October 30, 2000.
[xiv] <#14> Cone, Marla. "Changes in Fish Tied to Feedlots." Los
Angeles Times. December 11, 2003
Do Mammograms Cause Breast Cancer?
From: NewsTarget.com http://www.newstarget.com/010886.html
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)
Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman's chances of survival by at least 17 percent.
The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.
Effectiveness of Mammography
Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.
At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or "false negatives." Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.
Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.
According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.
Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.
Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.
The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it." Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.
Navigating the Statistics
While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40 percent in the United States.
Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases. While the matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms.
The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.
Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they may even do more harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.
New Screening Technologies
While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.
Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.
The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:
Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23
"The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537
No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23
The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291
A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21
Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540
Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104
Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132
The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544
High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72 Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588 "Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women."
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%."
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467
Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42
Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305
Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123
As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47
In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12
One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57 One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53 When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233 Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53
Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234
For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587
€ Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. Newstarget.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. It is not intended as a substitute for the diagnosis, treatment or advice of a qualified professional. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material.
Taken from http://www.organicconsumers.org
MSG in Conventional Foods: Are the Food Giants Deliberately Poisoning Us?
Web Note: MSG is banned in all organic foods.
MSG - The Slow Poisoning Of America MSG Hides Behind 25+ Names, Such As 'Natural Flavouring' MSG Is Also In Your Favorite Coffee Shops And Drive-Ups
I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive obesity epidemic, so did a friend of mine, John Erb.
He was a research assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, and spent years working for the government.
He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called "The Slow Poisoning of America".
In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies. No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so the scientists have to create them. They make these morbidly obese creatures by injecting them with MSG when they are first born. The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates; causing rats (and humans?) to become obese. They even have a title for the fat rodents they create: "MSG-Treated Rats".
I was shocked too. I went to my kitchen, checking the cupboards and the fridge. MSG was in everything: The Campbell's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavoured potato chips, Top Ramen, Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen prepared meals, Kraft salad dressings, especially the 'healthy low fat' ones.
The items that didn't have MSG marked on the product label had something called ''Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein'', which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate.
It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff. They hide MSG under many different names in order to fool those who carefully read the ingredient list, so they don't catch on. (Other names for MSG: 'Accent' - 'Aginomoto' - 'Natural Meet Tenderizer', etc) But it didn't stop there. When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants what menu items had MSG.
Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly provided, sure enough MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere:
Burger King McDonalds Wendy's Taco Bell
And every restaurant like: TGIF, Chilis', Applebees and Denny's use MSG in abundance.
Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG was in EVERY chicken dish, salad dressing and gravy. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin, their secret spice was MSG.
So, why is MSG in so may of the foods we eat?
Is it a preservative or a vitamin?? Not according to my friend John. In the book he wrote, an expose of the food additive industry called "The Slow Poisoning of America" he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body. http://www.spofamerica.com Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group supporting MSG at: http://www.msgfactscom/facts/msgfact12.html explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people EAT MORE OF THEIR PRODUCTS.
A study of the elderly showed that people eat more of the foods it is added to.The Glutamate Association lobby group says eating more benefits the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us? 'Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?
The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance! Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these? :- 'The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity'. GobattoCA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA.Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.
'Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats'. Guimaraes RB, Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro Brain Res Bull. 2002 Aug.
'Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously hypertensive rats: an animal model of multiple risk factors'. Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, IchikawaK, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.
'Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in suckling period and subsequent development of obesity'. Tanaka K, Shimada M, Nakao K, Kusunoki Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.
Yes, that last study was not a typo, it WAS written in 1978. B