The Susan G. Komen Foundation first handed out the Pink Ribbon in 1991 to participants in the New York City race for breast cancer survivors. It must have been difficult for sixty-eight year old breast cancer survivor Charlotte Haley—who had started her own peach ribbon campaign in 1990. Charlotte made her ribbons by hand and distributed them herself with a card attached that read, “The National Cancer Institute’s annual budget is 1.8 billion US dollars, and only 5% goes to cancer prevention. Help us wake up our legislators and America by wearing this ribbon.” Cancer prevention. While the commercially driven pink ribbon campaign is an internationally recognized symbol—breast cancer prevention options haven’t changed much.
It’s crazy isn’t it? It’s amazing how much a simple color change to Estee Lauder’s “150 pink” and “nearly $2 BILLION dollars into research, awareness, outreach, and advocacy in more than 50 countries” (Komen Foundation-resource below) can do to raise “awareness.” Despite the information and studies that have since been done on the safety of mammograms for prevention, they remain the gold standard for breast cancer prevention and awareness.
According to Dr. Russell Blaylock, if a woman followed the old guidelines of yearly mammograms beginning at age 40 with no cancer, by the time she was 50—she would have increased her chances of getting cancer from radiation exposure by 30%:
“ Some radiologists say it’s even higher than that. But there is also a subgroup of women who have a strong family history of breast cancer and their rates are infinitely higher than that. The reason they have a high risk factor is that they can’t repair their DNA very well. They have BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, which is the gene that repairs DNA when it’s damaged by radiation. For these women the same dosage of radiation given to women without the BRCA gene causes much more damage. It’s probably equivalent to three, four, or five times the amount of radiation. For women with BRCA1 and BRCA2, mammograms can induce not only cancer but also a very aggressive cancer.”
Read that again and let it sink in. (See Knockout below)
How’s that for prevention? And for women with DCIS (ductile carcinoma in situ) why would you risk rupturing an enclosed milk duct that in most cases would never metastasize? Are they causing more damage by smashing your breast between two metal plates? And fibrocystic breasts in most cases are too dense to see anything radiologically until you can already feel a lump. So much for prevention. For pregnant women, the hormone progesterone increases your sensitivity to radiation and your baby’s risk of developing leukemia from the exposure.
So why would any doctor continue to order mammograms? And why don’t they educate themselves and their patients to other alternatives like Thermography? I suggested this to an oncologist three years ago and his response was, “I’ve never heard of it, and even if I did, there’s probably no one around here that does it.” In actuality, there was a naturopath within 2 miles from his office who had been doing thermograms for several years. I gave him her card.
Cancer treatment is big money. How are hospitals going to pay for mammogram units that cost on average $430,000 dollars each? Imagine the economic impact of natural healing techniques that eliminate inflammation, lifestyle changes that nourish and promote self-love; and using Thermography. Imagine studying epigenetics and learning that your genes are more influenced by your lifestyle than your history. Oncologists would have to find another profession. Radiology units would close, laying off millions of people. Who would pay for all those machines? It has to raise the question, “Do they really want to find a cure?”
Awareness really is the answer. But the question is, are you ready to find the truth?