A mammogram is a low energy x-ray. The rest of this fact sheet is from a lecture I listened to by Sayer Ji. Please look into him and his work and decide for yourself. Of course google him and quack and you’ll get plenty in the other direction.
Now I tend to watch videos daily of ‘experts’ interviewing ‘experts’. Mostly Drs and Coaches. One of my favorites sites is Undergroundwellness.com Sean Croxton does amazing interviews with leaders in the Health Field. From all over the place. He has hosted a few Summits that are full of amazing lectures. Sean lead the Thyroid Summit, which was incredible. Another incredible summit was The Gluten Summit led by Dr. Tom O’Bryan. I also listened to The Functional Health Summit which is where I came across Sayer Ji the first time. He stated that low energy x-rays are not the safe thing we’ve been told. I looked into it further.
I’m putting out this info. It’s up to you what you want to do with it. You may decide to go ahead with your mammograms. You may decide to try the other options I’ll be sharing with you instead. That is the route I’m taking. As you know at the time of this writing I’m still on the wait list to get my genetic testing done. But odds are good that I along with the other women in my family have Triple Negative Breast Cancer Gene.
X-rays are a known carcinogen. That’s why people giving you x-rays are covered or in another room. Even at the dentist. Which is supposed to be a low energy x-ray.
Cancer.org has this to say:
Studies done in the labMost animal and laboratory studies have found no evidence of an increased risk of cancer with exposure to RF radiation. A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be linked to cancer.
This is from a paper published by the Oxford Journal:
It has been widely assumed that the initial genetic events induced by radiation in mammalian cells occur as a direct result of DNA damage that is not correctly restored by metabolic repair processes. As a consequence, genetic changes such as mutations and chromosomal aberrations would arise in the irradiated cell at the site of DNA damage. There is now increasing evidence, however, that exposure of cell populations to ionizing radiation may also produce non-targeted effects; that is, important genetic consequences of radiation may arise in cells that in themselves received no direct nuclear exposure. Current research in three of these areas is described below.
Then there’s this:
In 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme,” revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:
Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times - but possibly as much as six times - more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.
I’d also like to interject here that you need to check your sources. Where is the funding coming from? Often this is a simple thought exercise. If there is no war, what happens to the Secretary of War? He is fired. It is in his best interest to maintain war.
Here’s something I found interesting that Sayer Ji said:
Breast cancer awareness month was started in 1985 by the company that owns the patent to Tamaxophine (a cancer drug) which is made by Imperial Chemical Industries. Breast cancer awareness month pushes the idea that healthy women should get regular mammograms. So mammograms were introduced to the mass public by a cancer drug company. These same drugs that are classified as carcinogenic aka a substance that causes cancer.
To put it simply radiation causes DNA to rip apart or mutate. The idea is that you heal and your DNA goes back to being healthy strong DNA. However there are millions of environmental toxins that are attacking your DNA at the same time. Even with healthy to begin with DNA this is eventually to much for your body to repair.
If you have a BRCA Gene mutation you have a hard time healing. If you have a BRCA mutation ‘they’ want you to get mammograms starting in your 30’s and much more frequently. This causes your DNA to get ‘ripped apart’ quicker than it can repair itself. In a fairly short amount of time this pushes your risk of breast cancer even higher! Sayer Ji is not the only person, even Dr’s have said to avoid x-rays at all costs. ESPECIALLY if you have a higher risk!
Then there’s this:
In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review,** also known as the Gøtzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane Review, titled “Screening for breast cancer with mammography,” the authors revealed the tenuous statistical justifications for mass breast screenings:
Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.
This was confirmed and even thought to be understated in 2011.
As I said before it’s good to know your sources so here’s this:
The Cochrane Database Review is at the top of the “food chain” of truth, in the highly touted “evidence-based model” of conventional medicine. Cochrane Database Reviews are produced by The Cochrane Collaboration, which is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high quality, evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of common health care interventions. The organization, comprised of over 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries, prides itself on being an “independent” source of information, and historically has not been afraid to point out the corrupting influence of industry, which increasingly co-opts the biomedical research and publishing fields.
The low-energy wavelengths cause double strand breaks within the DNA of susceptible cells, which the cell can not repair. Through time these mutations result in “neoplastic transformation”; radiation has the ability to induce a cancerous phenotype within formerly healthy cells that has cancer stem cell-like (CSC) properties.
Finally I want to remind you (or inform you if you didn’t know) Most of the large scale “fundraising for the cure” nonprofits aren’t actually looking for a cure. They are profiting off of women getting cancer. In fact if woman were able to detect breast cancer before a mammogram does then these non profits would be out of a job. You would have time to try alternatives to the slash and burn technique that is surgery chemo and radiation.
“The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca (now AzkoNobel).
AstraZeneca has long been a Komen booster, making educational grants to Komen and having a visible presence at the Race For the Cure. At the 1998 Food and Drug Administration hearings, the Komen Foundation was the only national breast cancer group to endorse the AstraZeneca cancer treatment drug tamoxifen as a prevention device for healthy but high-risk women, despite vehement opposition by most other breast cancer groups because of its links to uterine cancer.
The organization’s biggest sponsors are — surprise! — the corporations that profit from cancer through chemotherapy and radiation. To them, Komen for the Cure isn’t really about finding a cure for cancer; it’s about promoting cancer so that they can sell more drugs and radiotherapy that keeps more patients locked into a cycle of dependence on toxic cancer treatments.” -Well put, Natural News.
Did you notice that they support giving healthy women a known cancer causing “preventative” drug?
This is the kind of thing that get’s my blood to boil. This is profiting off of sickness, and not only that, but promoting things that GIVE WOMEN CANCER in order to make a bigger profit!!!!!!!
Here’s my disclaimer. I can’t tell you want to do. I wish I could. I can’t even make my own sister and mother put the damned toast down. Even tho I know and have told them that gluten is super hard on your system especially in the middle of chemo and it’s a toxin and it’s inflammatory and it attacks your genetic weak link… and it’s toast so it’s all sugar which is feeding the cancer on top of everything else! So I know that I can scream at the wall and have better odds of getting the wall to do what I want than another human being. I’m not saying don’t get a mammogram, I’m just saying I won’t be getting a mammogram and this is why. Do what feels right to you. Talk to your family, look into it in depth. Make an informed choice. If you really do look deeper into it I promise you will be filled with rage. I’m sorry about that but we woman need to get angry. We need to fight back. We need to stop being a a way for others to make money off of our illness and ignorance. In the age of information ignorance is a choice.
So questions? comments? I’ll be going into alternative screenings that actually show signs of cancer BEFORE it’s turned into a mass. I’ll also be covering how to detox from chemo and radiation. So stay tuned, we’ve got plenty more ground to cover!!!
Pass this on to a woman you love. Please.