Dr Akilah – Celestial Healing Wellness Center

The Natural Health and Holistic World According to Dr Akilah

Tag Archives: medical

A Campaign to Carry Pregnancies to Term

By 

The March of Dimes opened a new campaign this summer to curb the large and growing number of otherwise healthy pregnancies that are deliberately ended early by induced labor or Caesarean delivery.

Research has clearly shown that a change in approach that emphasizes allowing babies to develop fully when both mother and baby are doing well could result in healthier babies and lower medical costs. The campaign is called “Healthy babies are worth the wait.”

What prompted the campaign is what many experts view as an alarming trend in American obstetrics — the steady rise in elective deliveries of singleton babies before 39 weeks of gestation, when fetal development is complete. Gestation is calculated from the first day of a woman’s last menstrual period. Studies have shown that as many as 36 percent of elective deliveries now occur before 39 weeks, and many of these early deliveries are contributing to an unacceptable number of premature births and avoidable, costly complications.

Although guidelines issued 12 years ago by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists cautioned against elective delivery by induction or Caesarean before 39 weeks, an overwhelming majority of new mothers and many doctors who deliver babies believe it is just as safe for birth to occur weeks earlier.

Complications

But the medical facts say otherwise. With each decreasing week of gestation below 39 to 40 weeks, there is an increased risk of complications like respiratory distress, jaundice, infection, low blood sugar, extra days in the hospital (including time in the neonatal intensive care unit), and even deaths of newborn babies and older infants.

Although tests may show that the baby’s lungs are well developed at, say, 37 weeks, research has demonstrated that the risk of newborn complications is still significantly higher than if delivery occurs two to three weeks later. In a study published last December of babies demonstrated to have mature lungs before birth, those delivered at 36 to 38 weeks had two and a half times the number of complications compared with those delivered at 39 to 40 weeks. Problems more common among babies delivered earlier in gestation included respiratory distress, jaundice and low blood sugar.

Yet in 2008 among a national sample of 650 women who had recently given birth, 51.7 percent chose 34 to 36 weeks of gestation as “the earliest point in pregnancy that it is safe to deliver the baby” and 40.7 percent chose 37 to 38 weeks. Only 7.6 percent selected 39 to 40 weeks, the true length of a full-term pregnancy, and the time when complications, including stillbirth, are least likely to occur.

Although many women think that weight gain is all that happens to babies during the last few weeks of pregnancy, Dr. Eve Lackritz, chief of the maternal and infant health branch of the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said vital organs like the brain, lungs and liver are still developing. There are also fewer vision and hearing problems among babies born at full term.

“Babies aren’t fully developed until at least 39 weeks,” Dr. Lackritz told a news briefing in New York convened by the March of Dimes. For example, a baby’s brain at 35 weeks gestation weighs only two-thirds of what it will weigh at 39 to 40 weeks.

“If there are no medical complications, the healthiest outcome for both mother and infant is delivery at 40 weeks,” Dr. Lackritz said.

This is not to suggest that women should panic if labor begins earlier on its own. “It’s a whole different story when a woman goes into labor early than when labor is induced,” Dr. Uma M. Reddy of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development said in an interview. She explained that the labor process helps to prevent lung problems. At the same gestational age, there are fewer respiratory problems when labor occurs naturally than when it is medically induced, Dr. Reddy said.

Dr. Reddy and colleagues analyzed more than 46 million singleton live births that occurred from 1995 to 2006 and found that newborn death rates at 37 weeks of gestation were two and a half to nearly three times the number at 40 weeks and were also elevated at 38 weeks of gestation. For example, in 2006 the infant mortality rate at 37 weeks gestation was 3.9 per 1,000 live births; at 38 weeks, 2.5 per 1,000 births; and at 40 weeks, 1.9 per 1,000 births. They reported their findings in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology in June. The researchers also found that these so-called early-term births were associated with higher rates of death after birth and during infancy than were full-term births occurring at 39 to 41 weeks.

Dr. Reddy said that the textbook definition of “term pregnancy” as one that lasts from 37 to 41 weeks “is arbitrary — it has no biological basis. If a woman’s water hasn’t broken, if labor hasn’t begun on its own, if there are no medical or obstetrical problems, there’s no reason for a woman to be delivered before 39 weeks.”

The recommendation applies not just to women whose labor is induced, but also to those having a scheduled Caesarean delivery. Too often, women are mistaken about when they got pregnant, which can throw off the calculation of their due date. Even when a “dating”ultrasound is done during the first trimester of pregnancy, there can be as much as a two-week margin of error. Thus, a woman may think her pregnancy has lasted 39 weeks when it is only 37 weeks along. Or she may think she is 37 weeks pregnant when she is only 35 weeks; a delivery at that point would result in a premature birth.

Countering Early Elective Births

Dr. Reddy pointed out that “late preterm births” — between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation — in pregnancies with no complications are more common among older white women with higher levels of education who “are more likely to ask their obstetricians to deliver them before term.”

Well-educated women may be more inclined to want to schedule birth at a convenient time for themselves and other family members. Doctors, too, may suggest an elective delivery so that birth occurs at a time that best suits their schedules, including office hours and vacation times. Sometimes doctors, fearing a malpractice suit if something should go wrong if a pregnancy proceeds to term, choose to deliver babies early when they are alive and well.

To counter the avoidable complications and higher costs associated with preterm elective deliveries, beginning in January 2001 a network of nine urban hospitals in the Intermountain Healthcare system in Utah instituted a program to greatly limit elective deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation. The program included educational programs for doctors, nurses and pregnant women. However, not until strict monitoring of births was instituted by the hospitals did the rate of early deliveries drop to less than 3 percent from 28 percent, with a host of benefits but “no adverse effects” seen on the health of the mothers or babies.

www.healingpowerhour.com

Health Care Workers Now Choose Alternative Medicine

By Dr. Mercola
Alternative medicine is no longer so “alternative” for health care workers, the majority of whom use a variety of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for themselves.

In fact, 76 percent of health care workers use CAM, compared to 63 percent of the general population, according to research in the journal

Health Services Research. Even more revealing, health care providers, including doctors and nurses, were more than twice as likely to have used practitioner-based CAM, and nearly three times as likely to use self-treatment with CAM, during the prior year than support workers.
It seems health care workers are poignantly aware of many of the pitfalls of modern medicine and as such are embracing more holistic modalities. As psychiatrist Joya Lynn-Schoen, M.D., who practices alternative medicine, told Health Behavior News Service, part of the Center for Advancing Health:
“As insiders, health care workers understand what’s missing in our medical system. They’re more educated than others about orthodox and alternative medicine … Mainstream medicine will say, ‘Here’s a pill’ or ‘Have an operation” or ‘There’s nothing wrong with you. You’re just tired.'”

With holistic therapies, attention is directed to finding the rootcause of disease so you can heal on a deep, instead of surface, level. In simpler terms, holistic medicine focuses on health, whereas conventional medicine focuses on disease.

Holistic Medicine Increasing in Popularity

The trend of CAM use among health care workers is mirrored by that of the general population. Increasing numbers of people are looking for treatments that fall outside of the realm of conventional medical care, often because conventional medicine has failed them or even made their conditions worse.

In 2007, more than 38 percent of U.S. adults used complementary and alternative medicine, along with 12 percent of children — a rate that’s been increasing since 2002. This amounts to 4 in 10 adults, and 1 in 9 children, embracing CAM. According to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, while CAM is used by people of all backgrounds, use is greatest among women and those with higher levels of education and income

CAM practices are very diverse and include, but are not limited to:

Nutritional medicine Holistic Nutritionist
Naturopathy Chiropractic
Herbalism, homeopathy, and nutritional-based therapies Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and acupuncture
Ayurveda Meditation and hypnosis

Are You Fed Up with Prescription Drugs and Surgery?

Taking medications and having surgery is clearly not the route to optimal health that the modern medical system would have you believe it is. Dr. Null and colleagues published an oft-cited report in 2003 about the death toll caused by drugs and conventional medical treatments, which included the following statistics.

  • Adverse drug reactions — 106,000 deaths/year
  • Medical errors — 98,000 deaths/year
  • Unnecessary procedures — 37,136 deaths/year
  • Surgery — 32,000 deaths/year

Additionally, a June 2010 report in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, which analyzed 62 million death certificates from 1979 to 2006 (the most recent year available), found that almost a quarter-million of those deaths were coded as having occurred in a hospital setting due to medication errors.  In an AMA article discussing the study, one co-author was quoted as stating that “medication errors are the second-leading cause of accidental death, and the only kind of accidental death that is increasing over time.”

An estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occur in the U.S. every year, and adverse drug reactions cause injuries or death in 1 of 5 hospital patients. The costs of adverse drug reactions to society are more than $136 billion annually — greater than the total cost of cardiovascular or diabetic care.

Further, an analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2010 found that 18 percent of patients were harmed by medical care(some repeatedly) and over 63 percent of the injuries could have been prevented. In nearly 2.5 percent of these cases, the problems caused or contributed to a person’s death. In another 3 percent, patients suffered from permanent injury, while over 8 percent experienced life-threatening issues, such as severe bleeding during surgery.

In all there were over 25 injuries per 100 admissions! In other words you have a one in four chance of getting injured if you are admitted to the hospital, not very good odds by any stretch. So it is easy to understand why some people are abandoning conventional medicine like rats leaving a sinking ship! Alternative medicine typically offers a more positive treatment experience and typically produces better results, and Americans are also increasingly distrustful of prescription medicines, and rightfully so!

Holistic Medicine Helps You Take Control of Your Health

The more you take responsibility for your own health — in the form of nurturing your body to prevent disease — the less you need to rely on the “disease care” that passes for health care in the United States.

If you carefully follow some basic health principles — simple things like exercisingeating whole foodssleeping enoughgetting sun exposure, reducing stress in your life, and nurturing personal relationships — you will drastically reduce your need for conventional medical care, which in and of itself will reduce your chances of suffering ill side effects.

But in the event you do need medical care, seek a health care practitioner who will help you move toward complete wellness by helping you discover and understand the hidden causes of your health challenges … and create a customized and comprehensive — i.e. holistic— treatment plan for you. You and your family CAN take control of your health, and you can typically do so using lifestyle choices and other natural, holistic strategies.

www.healingpowerhour.com

Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)

by: Dawn Prate

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.

Radiation Risks

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 entitledAbout 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, theincidenceof 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 unbornchild, 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 234For 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

How Chemotherapy Kills Both Cancer Cells and Cancer Patients

Chemo Kills instead of Healsby: Dani Veracity

Imagine that you own a house that is absolutely perfect and beautiful with all the necessities, except that it has some rodents inside. When you call the exterminators, they tell you that they won’t be able to target just the rodents, as these rodents are of an especially stealthy breed. They tell you they’re just going to set off a series of explosions in your house that may kill the rodents. They warn you, “Oh yeah, it may destroy some of your house in the process, but, hey, you want those rodents out of your house, right?” There’s probably no way you would allow that; instead, you would do some research and find other, more specific and less generally destructive ways of getting rid of the rodents.

The allegorical exterminators’ logic makes no sense; yet, it’s the same logic that doctors who prescribe chemotherapy follow. Like the exterminators’ explosions, chemotherapy doesn’t exclusively target cancer cells; it also harms your good cells, destroying some of your body– your “house” – in the process. As a result, many chemotherapy patients lose their hair, develop immune deficiencies, lose weight and vomit. Chemotherapy poisons your body as a whole in an attempt to kill the cancer cells before the “treatment” brings your body to an unrecoverable state.

As Gary Null and James Feast write, “(After chemotherapy,) the hope is the cancer is going to be totally dead and you are only half dead and recover.” Unfortunately, some people are more than “half dead” after chemotherapy and remain damaged for the rest of their lives, no matter how long or how short that life may be. They never realize that according to many alternative health practitioners, there are safer ways of combating many types of cancer.

Former chemotherapy patient Anne explains in Michio Kushi’s and Alex Jack’s book,The Cancer Prevention Diet: “My mind rebelled at the thought of another six months of that poison. On several occasions, the doctor couldn’t Shocking Before and After Pic of Chemo Patientsperform chemotherapy treatments on me because my white blood cell count was dangerously low. I promised my body I would not undergo any further chemotherapy treatments.”

Anne’s account reflects the feelings of all too many cancer patients who have suffered through months of often debilitating chemotherapy. The side effects that chemotherapy patients feel and others see – the extreme nausea and vomiting, the hair loss, the weight loss – are indicative of the intense havoc that chemotherapy is causing within the body. According to the Life Extension Foundation,chemotherapy drugs are “cytotoxic,” meaning that “they kill cells that are extremely active.” Cancer cells are, of course, extremely active. However, so are the cells of the hair and the immune system, for example, which accounts for chemotherapy’s destructive side effects.

As if these side effects are not enough,cancer therapy commonly includes surgery and radiation, both of which have their own dangers and side effects. As Professor Null writes in his Complete Encyclopedia of Natural Healing, “The mainstream medical establishment often prescribes mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy to treat cancer, an approach that has been described as a slash-and-burn strategy.” The treatment for breast cancer is unfortunately often the general rule among cancer treatment– cut off the affected organ, poison the body with chemotherapy and then harm the body even more with radiation.

InGet Healthy Now, Professor Null describes one woman’s experience with mainstream medicine’s approach to breast cancer treatment: “Three days later, she had her breast lopped off. That was followed up with lots of chemotherapy. Her hair fell out and she vomited 24 hours a day. She couldn’t keep any food down. Then they did radiation and her skin burnt up and two of her ribs broke.” He concludes, “Most people don’t know how dangerous radiation is. I had seen enough. I wouldn’t touch any of that medicine with a 10-foot pole.” Surgical removal of the cancerous body part also has its own aftereffects, of course, requiring not only the normal recovery after any surgery, but also coping with the psychological effects of having a body part removed.

It may all be unnecessary in the first place

As cancer patients suffer from the side effects of chemotherapy and other methods of mainstream cancer treatment, the fact remains that according to many medical practitioners, these treatments are unnecessary and sometimes do more harm than good. In response to chemotherapy’s many side effects, Dr. Atkins says in Burton Goldberg’s Alternative Medicine, “Only in situations in which chemotherapy is proven to be effective and curative would I recommend it. In general, this might be testicular cancer.”

Many people also think that surgery can sometimes do more harm than good: Biopsy, for example, may in fact spread cancer cells, according to Professor Null. Furthermore, the most extreme example of unnecessary cancer therapy– treatment for false positive cancer diagnoses – is more common than we’d like to believe, according toCritical Conditionauthors Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele.

If, as many people believe, mainstream cancer treatment is sometimes ineffective and always harmful to the body as a whole, then what is the alternative? Goldberg writes that Ukrain, which is made from the alkaloids of the greater celandine plant and the pharmaceutical Thiotepa, “can do everything chemotherapy does but without the side effects, so it renders chemotherapy largely unnecessary.” The beauty of Ukrain is that it, unlike chemotherapy drugs, it only targets the cancer cells and not your healthy ones. Furthermore, good nutrition – vitamins, minerals, fiber, fresh fruit and vegetables, juices and medicinal herbs– can do wonders against cancer. Of course, you need to discuss a treatment plan that is right for your type of cancer and your body with a medical professional, preferably a naturopath. But before you say yes to chemotherapy, remember what it does to your body and consider all available treatments.

Read Dr Akilah’s story on how she conquer stage 4 cervical cancer and naturally cured herself without chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. http://www.celestialhealing.net/founderstory.htm

To learn how to eliminate cancer completely from your body along with seeking natural HIGHLY EFFECTIVE methods to prevent cancer please contact Dr Akilah 770-603-0141

Over 100,000 Americans Died From FDA Approved Prescription Drugs Last Year

Last year, over half a million Americans were hurt by prescription drugs. And 100,000 of them died.

How did that happen? If some prescription drugs are that dangerous, how are they getting approved?

The answer is not simple. There are good people involved in the process. But the incentive in the system has become distorted.

Here’s how it happened…

The FDA now regulates $2.5 trillion worth of food, drugs and medical devices. That’s 25 percent of all U.S. consumer spending.

Plus, over the last two decades, America’s appetite for prescription drugs exploded. The FDA, struggling to keep up, needed to get drugs approved faster.

But the bureaucracy has grown so big that it’s not very efficient. So the FDA tried to shortcut the time for drug approval by getting the drug companies themselves to pay for the research.

In 1992, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act to give the FDA more desperately needed funds. The law allows drug companies to pay the FDA to approve their drugs.

This funding is called “user fees,” which this year will equal nearly one-third – $920 million – of the FDA’s budget.

The fees make sense for the drug companies because delayed drug approval means millions in lost revenue. So, paying “user fees” to the FDA gets drugs approved fast. In fact, this funding boost has made the FDA the fastest drug approval agency in the world.

But that turned out to make a bad situation worse. Now you have government employees and supervisors very sensitive to what the drug companies think of them because they’re dependent on the companies for funding.

The FDA’s own scientists even admit to this. Scientists like David Graham. He’s played a key role in getting 12 drugs removed from the market, including Vioxx. Take a look at what he said after the FDA made Merck pull Vioxx from the market because of the risk of heart attacks:

“As currently configured, the FDA is not able to adequately protect the American public. It’s more interested in protecting the interests of industry. It views industry as its client, and the client is someone whose interest you represent. Unfortunately, that’s the way the FDA is currently structured.”

How does this affect you? Because as a result of this current structure, more than 20 approved drugs have been recalled since 1992.

Before the Prescription Drug User Fee Act – when the FDA received no funding from pharmaceutical companies – only eight drugs were withdrawn from the 1950s through 1992.

But withdrawn drugs are just scratching the surface. There are countless dangerous – even deadly – drugs that remain on the market. Drugs like statins and powerful NSAIDs. Not to mention recalls due to contamination and other manufacturing problems.

A few potentially deadly drugs that were approved for prescription include:

  • Avandia: 83,000 heart attacks, 304 deaths and thousands of reports to the FDA, and 10 separate studies say it increases the risk of heart attack by up to 80 percent… and it’s still being prescribed to thousands of diabetes patients.
  • Baycol: This statin drug caused a rare but sometimes fatal muscle ailment. There were 31 reported deaths directly linked to it before Baycol was pulled from the market.
  • Vioxx: Prescribed 105 million times … it killed 57,000 people before its maker finally stopped selling it.

That in no way means there aren’t life-saving drugs developed by responsible people that have helped millions of Americans. But one brand new study by the American Sociological Association found that 85 percent of new drugs cause more harm than good.9 And Celebrex, a pain reliever similar to Vioxx, has caused hundreds of heart attacks, but is still prescribed.

That can certainly make you wonder if we don’t need to slow down a little bit, and take a closer look at what drugs get approved, and how fast.

Whether that happens or not, there’s good news.

You Have the Power to Make Your Own Decisions

There are forces out there that aren’t working to your advantage. Despite the smart people doing hard work and all the helpful science, not everyone’s incentive is your health. But don’t worry. You have plenty of help, and you can make your own choices.

You’d never hear that from a big company because showing you how to keep yourself well isn’t half as profitable as treating symptoms with drugs. But there are natural remedies and preventatives that can keep you away from the pharmacy for good.

My 100%-Natural Plan:
9 Keys for Avoiding Chronic Illnesses
and the Dangerous Drugs That Treat Them…

1. Eat like our ancestors. Our ancestors ate what they could hunt and gather. And that was natural meats and eggs, veggies, unmodified fruits and nuts, and olives. They ate a lot raw natural food with fewer carbs – and no processed foods or food cooked with vegetable oils. As a result, their archaeological records show virtually no heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis or obesity.

2. Enjoy the food you were born to eat. I’m talking about fat. Eating fat does not make you fat and unhealthy. But eating the wrong kinds of fat will. Our bodies need fat to absorb vitamins. In fact, vitamins A, D, E, K, and CoQ10 can’t even be absorbed without fat. What’s more, when you deprive yourself of fat, you eat more carbs. And an excess of them can put you at risk of weight gain, heart problems, diabetes and stroke. The best fat sources are foods loaded with Omega-3s (such as walnuts, almonds, cod liver oil and wild-caught salmon). But stay away from bad fats, like processed foods and vegetable oils. And don’t even go near potato chips, cookies and salad dressing. They’re loaded with the very worst fats – trans fats.

3. Stay away from simple carbohydrates. Starchy, high-carb foods spike your blood sugar. And that triggers the release of insulin. Over time, this can put you at risk of insulin resistance. And when that happens, you’ll be on the fast track to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Always eat foods with a low glycemic index and glycemic load.

4. Go organic whenever possible. Pesticides and insecticides can harm the nervous system, immune system and major organs, like the liver and kidneys. They also can cause problems with growth and neurological development in children. Organic farmers don’t use these chemicals. And that makes organic food much safer and healthier.

5. Rid your body of toxins. The world we were designed to live in millions of years ago has changed drastically. And our bodies haven’t adapted quickly enough to flush out the countless pollutants that are now a big part of our everyday lives. The easiest way to rid your system of toxins is to drink plenty of filtered water, and to eat fruit and fibrous vegetables for 21 – 30 days. Getting rid of chemicals and heavy metals in your body will help you live a longer, disease-free life.

6. Don’t fear the sun. Your body needs exposure to the sun to produce vitamin D – which helps you maintain strong, healthy bones and fight disease. Contrary to what you’ve been told, the sun isn’t bad for you – it’s nature’s cancer fighter. Just by getting a little sunlight every day (about 20 minutes for fair-skinned people and two to four times that much for those with dark skin) could reduce your risk of 16 types of cancer. Of course, I’m not telling you to go outside without sunscreen – but if you need it just make sure it’s chemical-free.

7. Supplement your diet (if necessary). The best way to get the nutrients you need is through a healthy organic diet. But if you don’t feel like you’re taking in enough, you can also safely supplement. And I emphasize “safely” because unlike prescription drugs, people are not dropping dead from dietary supplements (vitamins, amino acids, herbals and homeopathics).

Here are the vitamins and nutrients I suggest taking daily:

Vitamin/Nutrient
Food Source
Daily Supplement Dosage
Benefits
B2 milk, cheese, leafy green vegetables, liver, kidneys, legumes, tomatoes, yeast, mushrooms, and almonds 40 mg Good for blood cell formation and cataract prevention.
B6 roast beef, salmon, peanut butter, lima beans, chicken, sunflower seeds, spinach 50 mg Boosts brain and immune function. Helps prevent cancer.
B12 milk, eggs, grass-fed beef, chicken, yogurt, trout, salmon, haddock, clams, ham 500 mcg Helps digestion and prevents anemia and nerve damage.
Folic Acid green leafy veggies, calf liver 800 mcg Helps cell production and prevents dementia.
Vitamin C citrus fruits, green pepper, broccoli, kale, brussels sprouts At least 500 mg twice a day Boosts immunity.
Zinc steak, oysters 30 mg Maintains healthy immune system.
Vitamin D cod liver oil, eggs, milk and orange juice fortified with vitamin D, sardines, tuna, beef liver, Swiss cheese, ham 2,000 I.U. If your levels test low, take 5,000-10,000 I.U. from a variety of sources. Calcium absorption for healthy, strong bones. Prevents osteoporosis, hypertension, cancer and several autoimmune diseases.
Ubiquinol form of CoQ10 pork, beef, chicken 50 mg (increase your dosage to 100 mg per day if you have high blood pressure, heart disease, high cholesterol, gingivitis, age-related memory loss, chronic fatigue or are a vegetarian) Destroys free radicals in the cell membranes. Treats heart disease, high-blood pressure and high cholesterol.
Omega-3s wild-caught salmon, grass-fed beef, sacha inchi oil, nuts, leafy green veggies, eggs, avocados 18-24 grams Prevents heart disease, cancer – even strokes.
Lowers blood pressure and triglycerides (blood fat). Boosts memory and brain power.

Akilah M. El, N.D. is a Naturopathic Doctor and board-certified Master Herbalist with a private practice in Atlanta Georgia and Berlin Germany. Join Dr Akilah El on Facebook and Twitter

For More Health Tips Like This Check Out Our Health Tips Page