Read about Merck's Attempts to Get Gardasil Mandated ...

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/HPVvaccine.htm

Thank God there has been some sanity prevailing ... no wonder Merck's
PR flacks have the Grannie Brigade on Usenet to confuse this already
difficult issue.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....473b5d160366f#

Grannie Myrl Carlene Jeffcoat tossing out her muddled and confused
accusations against me ... she has been widely claiming that this is a
"simple math" question ... here's Myrl's math:

MyrlSpeak:
She's so focused on bashing the idea that a
vaccine may prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, that she is
reluctant to do the math. . .250,000 - 7 = 243,000 possible lives
saved!




http://groups.google.com/group/misc....b09975d1486334

Myrl Jeffcoat on comparing "9" post Merck's Gardasil related deaths in
the United States and 250,000 (estimated number of women worldwide who
are said to die from cervical cancer):

Myrl Jeffcoat Speak :
"Are you having issues with a sum-total that comes from subtracting 9
from 250,000?. . .Or is it that it makes it more difficult to paint
lipstick on your pig?"

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html

On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/HPVvaccine.htm

Thank God there has been some sanity prevailing ... no wonder Merck's
PR flacks have the Grannie Brigade on Usenet to confuse this already
difficult issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....browse_thread/...

Grannie Myrl Carlene Jeffcoat tossing out her muddled and confused
accusations against me ... she has been widely claiming that this is a
"simple math" question ... here's Myrl's math:

MyrlSpeak:
She's so focused on bashing the idea that a
vaccine may prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, that she is
reluctant to do the math. . .250,000 - 7 = 243,000 possible lives
saved!

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....browse_thread/...

Myrl Jeffcoat on comparing "9" post Merck's Gardasil related deaths in
the United States and 250,000 (estimated number of women worldwide who
are said to die from cervical cancer):

Myrl Jeffcoat Speak :
"Are you having issues with a sum-total that comes from subtracting 9
from 250,000?. . .Or is it that it makes it more difficult to paint
lipstick on your pig?"

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html



Again folks!. . .There are reports of 9 "possible" deaths from
Gardasil. 250,000 die from Cervical Cancer each year.

250,000 - 9 = 249,991

Ilena points to 2,200 adverse reactions "possibly" caused by the
vaccine. She does not address the many thousands of women, who
contract HPV, and Cervical Cancer, and endure years of treatment and
followup for their illnesses, simply to survive, and not be part of
those 250,000 women who die globally from Cervical Cancer.

Ilena's approach is to test and screen for the disease. Her approach
will come up with findings, but does nothing to PREVENT the disease at
all.

http://www.ilena-rosenthal.com

On Aug 19, 10:15 pm, Myrl wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:





http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/HPVvaccine.htm

Thank God there has been some sanity prevailing ... no wonder Merck's
PR flacks have the Grannie Brigade on Usenet to confuse this already
difficult issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....browse_thread/...

Grannie Myrl Carlene Jeffcoat tossing out her muddled and confused
accusations against me ... she has been widely claiming that this is a
"simple math" question ... here's Myrl's math:

MyrlSpeak:
She's so focused on bashing the idea that a
vaccine may prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, that she is
reluctant to do the math. . .250,000 - 7 = 243,000 possible lives
saved!

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....browse_thread/...

Myrl Jeffcoat on comparing "9" post Merck's Gardasil related deaths in
the United States and 250,000 (estimated number of women worldwide who
are said to die from cervical cancer):

Myrl Jeffcoat Speak :
"Are you having issues with a sum-total that comes from subtracting 9
from 250,000?. . .Or is it that it makes it more difficult to paint
lipstick on your pig?"

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html

Again folks!. . .There are reports of 9 "possible" deaths from
Gardasil. 250,000 die from Cervical Cancer each year.

250,000 - 9 = 249,991

Ilena points to 2,200 adverse reactions "possibly" caused by the
vaccine. She does not address the many thousands of women, who
contract HPV, and Cervical Cancer, and endure years of treatment and
followup for their illnesses, simply to survive, and not be part of
those 250,000 women who die globally from Cervical Cancer.

Ilena's approach is to test and screen for the disease. Her approach
will come up with findings, but does nothing to PREVENT the disease at
all.

http://www.ilena-rosenthal.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An ounce of prevention IS worth a pound of cure.
Of course Pap tests will continue, and it would be wonderful if
cervical cancer could be so prevented in the future, that it would no
longer even be an issue to deal with.

"Myrl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Again folks!. . .There are reports of 9 "possible" deaths from
Gardasil. 250,000 die from Cervical Cancer each year.

250,000 - 9 = 249,991


yeah, in your dreams, Merck sure knows how to brainwash people

250,000 are still going to die plus the ones killed by the vaccine

"Coleah" wrote in message
ps.com...


An ounce of prevention IS worth a pound of cure.
Of course Pap tests will continue, and it would be wonderful if
cervical cancer could be so prevented in the future, that it would no
longer even be an issue to deal with.



"Pap smears were designed to get women back into a doctor's office.....They
con women into either biopsies or surgery for their cervix before they
really have a problem.....I suggest that women never get a pap smear. It's
just a way that a gynaecologist makes his boat payments."----Dr Shulze (The
Sam Biser Herbal Video Collection p194)

here is another great prevention http://www.whale.to/a/mammography_h.html

"The latest evidence shifts the balance towards harm and away from
benefits," said Dr. Michael Baum of University College in London.
[Newstarget Feb 2007] Mammograms offer no health benefits whatsoever,
doctors conclude

Mammography was known to cause cancer but the media and the "health
officials" in the government stayed silent! The mammography policy pushed by
the American Cancer Society to fill its bank account remained the U.S.
government policy for ten more years until a massive Canadian study showed
conclusively what was known 20 YEARS before but what was not in the
interests of ACS and NCI to admit: X raying the breasts of women younger
than age 50 provided no benefit and probably endangered their lives. The
Depths of Deceit Mammography by Barry Lynes

In 1978, Irwin J. D. Bross., Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park
Memorial Institute for Cancer Research commented about the cancer screening
program:
"The women should have been given the information about the hazards of
radiation at the same time they were given the sales talk for mammography...
Doctors were gung ho to use it on a large scale. They went right ahead and X
rayed not just a few women but a quarter of a million women... A jump to the
exposure of a quarter of a million persons to something which could do more
harm than good was criminal and it was supported by money from the federal
government and the American Cancer Society."
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) was warned in 1974 by professor
Malcolm C. Pike at the University of Southern California School of Medicine
that a number of specialists had concluded that "giving a women under age 50
a mammogram on a routine basis is close to unethical." The Depths of Deceit
Mammography by Barry Lynes

Screening mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast
cancer for premenopausal women. The routine practice of taking four films of
each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed
dose) exposure, about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray. The
premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure
increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10
percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening.
Radiation risks are some four-fold greater for the 1 to 2 percent of women
who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene; by some
estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers diagnosed
annually
The widespread acceptance of screening has lead to overdiagnosis of
pre-invasive cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ), sometimes radically treated
by mastectomy and radiation, and even chemotherapy. Mammography Is Dangerous
Besides Ineffective, Warns Samuel S Epstein, M.D.

A recent study of 663 cancerous women published in the Archives of Surgery
reveals that those subjects whose cancerous breast tumors were needle
biopsied - in other words, intentionally ruptured for diagnostic purposes -
were 50% more likely to subsequently develop cancer of the lymphatic nodes
located under the armpit than women whose tumors were removed outright (also
not something I'd always recommend, but that's another story). For those in
the back row (or those with their fingers in their ears, like
mammographers), I'll shout: That's TWICE AS LIKELY to develop lymphatic
cancer after disruption of the cancerous tumor. Mammograms by Dr Campbell

Mammography simply joins the long list of therapies and procedures where
desire for profits and lowering of world population levels have superceded
the welfare of our citizens. DO MAMMOGRAMS CAUSE BREAST CANCER? By Dr. James
Howenstine, MD.

In 1978, Irwin J. D. Bross., Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park
Memorial Institute for Cancer Research commented about the cancer screening
program:
"The women should have been given the information about the hazards of
radiation at the same time they were given the sales talk for mammography...
Doctors were gung ho to use it on a large scale. They went right ahead and X
rayed not just a few women but a quarter of a million women... A jump to the
exposure of a quarter of a million persons to something which could do more
harm than good was criminal and it was supported by money from the federal
government and the American Cancer Society."
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) was warned in 1974 by professor
Malcolm C. Pike at the University of Southern California School of Medicine
that a number of specialists had concluded that "giving a women under age 50
a mammogram on a routine basis is close to unethical." The Depths of Deceit
Mammography by Barry Lynes

Screening mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast
cancer for premenopausal women. The routine practice of taking four films of
each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed
dose) exposure, about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray. The
premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure
increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10
percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening.
Radiation risks are some four-fold greater for the 1 to 2 percent of women
who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene; by some
estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers diagnosed
annually
The widespread acceptance of screening has lead to overdiagnosis of
pre-invasive cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ), sometimes radically treated
by mastectomy and radiation, and even chemotherapy. Mammography Is Dangerous
Besides Ineffective, Warns Samuel S Epstein, M.D.

A recent study of 663 cancerous women published in the Archives of Surgery
reveals that those subjects whose cancerous breast tumors were needle
biopsied - in other words, intentionally ruptured for diagnostic purposes -
were 50% more likely to subsequently develop cancer of the lymphatic nodes
located under the armpit than women whose tumors were removed outright (also
not something I'd always recommend, but that's another story). For those in
the back row (or those with their fingers in their ears, like
mammographers), I'll shout: That's TWICE AS LIKELY to develop lymphatic
cancer after disruption of the cancerous tumor. Mammograms by Dr Campbell

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 leukemia 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

"Coleah" wrote in message
ps.com...


An ounce of prevention IS worth a pound of cure.
Of course Pap tests will continue, and it would be wonderful if
cervical cancer could be so prevented in the future, that it would no
longer even be an issue to deal with.



PS. Plus the little know fact the likes of Merck and their friends have
suppressed dozens of real cancer cures goping back 100 years that would make
cervical cancer history http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html

and have a look at the main treatment for cervical cancer
http://www.whale.to/a/hysterectomy1.html

On Aug 21, 9:38 am, "JOHN" wrote:
"Coleah" wrote in message

ps.com...



An ounce of prevention IS worth a pound of cure.
Of course Pap tests will continue, and it would be wonderful if
cervical cancer could be so prevented in the future, that it would no
longer even be an issue to deal with.

"Pap smears were designed to get women back into a doctor's office.....They
con women into either biopsies or surgery for their cervix before they
really have a problem.....I suggest that women never get a pap smear. It's
just a way that a gynaecologist makes his boat payments."----Dr Shulze (The
Sam Biser Herbal Video Collection p194)

Ah, John.....thank you for sharing your what goes on inside your
mind....however, I think that point of view makes about as much sense
as if it were addressing the importance of prostrate exams for men.

JOHN wrote:
"Myrl" wrote in message
oups.com...
Again folks!. . .There are reports of 9 "possible" deaths from
Gardasil. 250,000 die from Cervical Cancer each year.

250,000 - 9 = 249,991


yeah, in your dreams, Merck sure knows how to brainwash people

250,000 are still going to die plus the ones killed by the vaccine

If Myrl were brain washed (and coming to a decision based on the facts
is not being brainwashed), that puts Myrl one up on you, because one has
to have a brain to become brainwashed.

Jeff

JOHN wrote:
"Coleah" wrote in message
ps.com...

An ounce of prevention IS worth a pound of cure.
Of course Pap tests will continue, and it would be wonderful if
cervical cancer could be so prevented in the future, that it would no
longer even be an issue to deal with.



"Pap smears were designed to get women back into a doctor's office.....They
con women into either biopsies or surgery for their cervix before they
really have a problem.....I suggest that women never get a pap smear. It's
just a way that a gynaecologist makes his boat payments."----Dr Shulze (The
Sam Biser Herbal Video Collection p194)

Pap smears save thousands of women's lives each year.

When you get a clue, let us know.

Jeff

In article , JOHN wrote:

"Myrl" wrote in message
roups.com...

Again folks!. . .There are reports of 9 "possible" deaths from
Gardasil. 250,000 die from Cervical Cancer each year.

250,000 - 9 = 249,991

yeah, in your dreams, Merck sure knows how to brainwash people

250,000 are still going to die plus the ones killed by the vaccine

Your fantasies about how vaccines don't work have long since lost
their amusement value.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"[Republicans] talk about Reagan the way gay guys talk about
Barbra Streisand." -- Bill Maher