A CHANCE TO SURVIVE CANCER — Doctors Are Not God

A CHANCE TO SURVIVE CANCER

Doctors Are Not God

  Bev Jo

I am dedicating this to my best friend, who has inspired women with her choices in  dealing with cancer. She had three unrelated cancers, starting in 1993,  for which she had surgery but said no to chemo-poison and radiation, mammograms and scans. She is now 75 (in 2017). We have more choices than we are led to believe.

I decided to write this because it was heart-breaking to see so many women I know suffer and die after following what most doctors recommend for dealing with cancer. Many women said they did not want to do it, but felt trapped. Some women even believe they have to obey the doctors to get any help at all.

I also wrote this because if I’d seen something like this many years ago, I would have refused carcinogenic tests, and I would have been less terrified when my best friend got cancer.

Why are we allowed so little informed consent by the medical system?  Shouldn’t the doctors’ oath, “First, do no harm…” be followed?

The suffering I see makes me want to say, please know that you do have the right to say no, to ask questions, and to decide what is done to your body and health. The medical system makes it very difficult for us to feel like our bodies are even our own. When I was little, some people, like my step-grandfather who was dying of cancer, were actually told repeatedly by their doctors that they didn’t have cancer. (He kept asking since he was in agony and he was clearly dying of something.) It’s likely the rich were told, but I don’t know about that. So how on earth could people even have a choice about what was done to them? The current medical system is on a continuum with that dishonesty. (In 2015, my orthopedic surgeon told me that they tell hospital ER doctors to deliberately not tell patients with serious wrist fractures that they need surgery.) This system is also still connected to experimentation against people’s will. Every person I know who was irreparably damaged by what the doctors did to them was not warned what could happen or were outright lied to.

Please know that, when dealing with cancer, once you agree to harmful “treatment” that you have been pressured into accepting, you may no longer have a chance to heal like you would have if you hadn’t been damaged by doctors. It’s not a case of trying what they recommend and then changing your mind — the first decision you make about what to do about cancer can have permanent effects. Of course you want to move quickly, but it’s essential to choose wisely. Do not agree to anything that feels wrong. Be your own researcher. And when in doubt, get more than one opinion.

Part of the problem is that even when people know that standard cancer “treatment” causes permanent damage, most still believe on some level that no doctor would do anything to harm them, so they believe that the recommended chemo-poison and/or radiation could not possibly destroy their immune system or cause other damage that makes recovery from cancer impossible.

How many people know what all doctors know, but which most deny, which is that there is no safe dose of radiation?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancer

It is tragic how most people are afraid to say “no” to doctors, or to even question them, considering the history of “medicine,” which is filled with lethal experiments on people without their knowledge or permission, and repeatedly using “treatments” that are known to not work. (Yet it makes sense to not say no, since an angry doctor can seriously harm you.) Women in particular are taught to be afraid to say no to authority. In this case, the result too often is suffering and death.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html 1

In 2005, a Florida hospital disclosed that 77 brain cancer patients had received 50 percent more radiation than prescribed because one of the most powerful — and supposedly precise — linear accelerators had been programmed incorrectly for nearly a year.

Dr. John J. Feldmeier, a radiation oncologist at the University of Toledo and a leading authority on the treatment of radiation injuries, estimates that 1 in 20 patients will suffer injuries….

Patients who wish to vet New York radiotherapy centers before selecting one cannot do so, because the state will not disclose where or how often medical mistakes occur. To encourage hospitals to report medical mistakes, the State Legislature — with the support of the hospital industry — agreed in the 1980s to shield the identity of institutions making those mistakes. The law is so strict that even federal officials who regulate certain forms of radiotherapy cannot, under normal circumstances, have access to those names….

A New York City hospital treating Scott Jerome-Parks for tongue cancer had failed to detect a computer error that directed a linear accelerator to blast his brain stem and neck with errant beams of radiation. Not once, but on three consecutive days. The next day, the hospital sent a psychiatrist to speak to Ms. Jerome-Parks, according to the hospital. A couple of hours later, her husband received yet another round of radiation….

As Scott Jerome-Parks lay dying, he clung to this wish: that his fatal radiation overdose — which left him deaf, struggling to see, unable to swallow, burned, with his teeth falling out, with ulcers in his mouth and throat, nauseated, in severe pain and finally unable to breathe — be studied and talked about publicly so that others might not have to live his nightmare.

Eventually the couple was offered a financial settlement, but it came at a price: silence. With neither of them working and expenses mounting, they accepted the offer. “I cried and cried and cried, like I’d lost Scott in another way,” Ms. Jerome-Parks wrote in an e-mail message on April 26, 2006. “Gag order required.”

Mr. Jerome-Parks died several weeks later in 2007. He was 43….

The state imposed no punishment for the overdoses of Mr. Jerome-Parks or Ms. Jn-Charles. The city levied fines of $1,000 against St. Vincent’s and $1,500 against University Hospital of Brooklyn.

On April 19, 2005, the day Ms. Jn-Charles showed up for her first radiation treatment, state health officials were still so worried about what had happened to Mr. Jerome-Parks that they issued an alert, reminding operators of linear accelerators “of the absolute necessity to verify that the radiation field is of the appropriate size and shape prior to the patient’s first treatment.”

In the four years before Ms. Jn-Charles began treatment, 21 accidents in New York State were linked to beam-modifying devices, including wedges, records show.

In legal papers before she died, Ms. Jn-Charles explained how the radiation therapist had told her not to worry. “It’s not painful — that it’s just like an X-ray,” she said she was told. “There may be a little reaction to the skin. It may break out a little, and that was basically it.”

Toward the end of therapy, Ms. Jn-Charles began to develop a sore on her chest. It seemed to get worse by the day. “I noticed skin breaking out,” she would later say. “It was peeling. It started small but it quickly increased.”

When Ms. Jn-Charles showed up for her 28th and final treatment, the therapist took her to see Dr. Alan Schulsinger, a radiation oncologist. “He just said that they wouldn’t give me any radiation today, and he gave me the ointment and stuff and said go home and come back in a couple of days,” Ms. Jn-Charles said.

A couple of days later, she returned. “More skin was peeling off, and going down into the flesh,” Ms. Jn-Charles said. Once again, she was told to go home and return later.

The linear accelerator was missing a vital command — to insert the wedge. Without it, the oncology team had been mistakenly scalding Ms. Jn-Charles with three and a half times the prescribed radiation dose during each session. Dr. Richard W. Freeman, chief medical officer, said “There is now a risk of injury to your chest wall, including your skin, muscle, bone and a small portion of lung tissue.”

One therapist mistakenly programmed the computer for “wedge out” rather than “wedge in,” as the plan required. Another therapist failed to catch the error. And the physics staff repeatedly failed to notice it during their weekly checks of treatment records. Even worse, therapists failed to notice that during treatment, their computer screen clearly showed that the wedge was missing. Only weeks earlier, state health officials had sent a notice, reminding hospitals that therapists “must closely monitor” their computer screens.

“The fact that therapists failed to notice ‘wedge OUT’ on 27 occasions is disturbing,” Dr. Tobias Lickerman, director of the city’s Radioactive Materials Division, wrote in a report on the incident. The hospital declined to discuss the case.

The overdose resulted in a wound that would not heal. Instead, it grew, despite dozens of sessions in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber. Doctors tried surgery. The wound would not close. So they operated a second, a third and a fourth time. In one operation, Ms. Jn-Charles’s chest wall was reconstructed using muscle from her back and skin from her leg. “I just had a big hole in my chest,” she would say. “You could just see my ribs in there.”

For more than a year, Ms. Jn-Charles was repeatedly hospitalized for pain and lived with the odor of her festering wound. Meanwhile, her cancer returned with a vengeance. Several months after her wound had finally healed, she died….

In 2008, at Stony Brook University Medical Center where patients were seriously harmed, the therapist not only continues to work at the hospital, but has also trained other workers, according to records and hospital employees. A spokeswoman for Stony Brook said privacy laws precluded her from discussing specifics about patient care or employees.

Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx fired a therapist, Annette Porter, accusing her of three mistakes, including irradiating the wrong patient, according to a government report on June 1, 2007. Ms. Porter retains her license.

This horror is completely predictable, but still a shock. How often is this kind of thing happening? When people are desperate for compensation as they are dying, they are forced to agree to never go public, so how do we know?

When trusting and believing the doctors, remember how cancer “treatment” is primarily about money and most doctors have never bothered to even learn what causes cancer. We should not have to struggle so hard to find out the truth about health, but we have very little control over our lives in patriarchy, so it’s essential that we do as much questioning, researching, and saying “no” as we can when we are in danger. We should not have to be our own researchers and doctors, but if we want to survive with the best health possible, and to help those we love, we have to learn as much about health as we can. That also means questioning everything we are told is true, especially by the medical industry. That often means also dealing with outraged friends and family who try to terrorize us into obedience.

But choosing to do nothing about cancer rarely works well either. Learn as much as you can so you can take as much control of your life and health as possible.

It can be terrifying to think about cancer, but knowledge gives us power. Too many people end up believing that the harm and suffering from “treatment,” such as terrible pain, vomiting, hair loss, permanent incontinence, etc., is caused by cancer itself. They also stop thinking critically, and don’t realize that standard mainstream medical cancer “treatment” causes new cancers. Many people believe the cancer has “returned” when it’s actually a secondary cancer from the damage caused by radiation or chemo-poison, both of which are well known to cause cancer where none existed before. A woman I know was told her breast cancer returned 18 years after surgery and radiation, which often is around the time that new cancers appear at the radiation site. A friend said her lover got an additional four cancers from “treatment” before she finally died, suffering the entire time. Women with breast cancer are talked into lumpectomies with radiation, without being told that the radiation also causes heart damage as well as causing new cancers. How often has a patient been warned about any of this by their doctors?

A friend who has uterine cancer was told that she would have a 70% survival rate after surgery, but that it could be 80% if she would have chemotherapy. I doubt she was told about how toxic chemo-poison is and that it causes more cancer, destroys your immune system, damages your heart, nerves, brain, etc., and makes you feel so sick you want to die. So she agreed, and after five rounds of terrible suffering, she was told she is “allergic” to the chemo-poison, which is ridiculous when discussing toxins, but that puts the blame on her body, not on the “treatment” or the doctors.

I am not criticizing anyone for choices they have made in trying to survive, but my concern is to alert women about the lies and myths we are taught about health and illness. I have learned so much from the decisions my best friend made in fighting and surviving three separate cancers. (I know only one other woman who made the choices she did, to have surgery and no chemo-poison or radiation, or radioactive scans.) Though my friend has had her phone number available for years to share support and information with other women, very few have called. (This is likely about classism and sexism.)

                 Preparing for Cancer Before Diagnosis

We are increasingly surrounded by toxic chemicals and radiation, so the cancer rate is also increasing. As far as I know, I’ve never had cancer (one theory is that we often get cancer and our immune system stops it.)  But because I knew that we are all at risk from so many sources, like pollution, pesticides, xenoestrogens (including the plastics we inadvertently eat from containers, cooking in Teflon, etc.), radiation (medical and military and wireless/cell phones), I wanted to be prepared. So in 1990, I got several books about cancer for myself and close friends to plan what we would do if/when we got that terrifying diagnosis and became vulnerable to doctors’ pressure.

My best friend and I read and discussed and we made the decision to have surgery but not anything else that harmed us, like chemo-poison and radiation. (We were also aware that the manufacturing of chemo-poison and the mining of uranium damages the environment irreparably, which is never mentioned by doctors, the media, etc. Even people who demand that other people change what they eat supposedly to help the environment ignore this.) The usual “treatments” also destroy the will to live because of the amount of suffering they cause. The more we learned, the more we realized that almost no one tries alternative methods until they have first irreparably damaged their immune systems with “treatment” and often not until they have been declared terminal. We also realized that people who reject “conventional/allopathic treatment” are not included in statistical reports. Doctors also don’t seem to want to learn what they did.

I watched cancer change from being an uncommon disease when I was a girl (born in 1950) to becoming epidemic. Even children, babies and short-lived animals get cancer now, which was extremely rare then. And no, the explanation for the cancer epidemic is not that people live longer now. (This is one of the most dangerous cons perpetrated by the medical industry and media to get people to not think or question how bad health has become in the last few decades.) If the past high incidence of infant mortality and women dying in childbirth are not counted, people live less years now than in the past and also with a much worse quality of life.2   http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html

My grandmother lived to 94, while my mother lived only to 80. Alice Walker’s great-great-great-great grandmother lived to 125 years old. At a convention of former slaves from Washington, D.C. in 1916, four women were over a hundred years old.3

When I was a kid, not one person in my large extended family had cancer or Alzheimer’s or dementia, and this is in a family with many alcoholics and smokers. Illnesses taken for granted now did not seem to exist or were very rare. (And no, it wasn’t hidden. Everyone in my mother’s family, as well as friends and neighbors knew everyone else’s business. Dementia was unheard of.)  Now, almost everyone I know has/had at least one parent with some kind of dementia. Being told it’s genetic is terrifying to their families, but if that were the case, then it should have been equally common in our families in the past, which it wasn’t.

Blaming illnesses that are caused by companies that pollute as being “genetic” shifts the focus from being something that can be stopped to being our own personal problem. It’s dishonest and cruel, and it adds to people feeling powerless.

                    Surviving Against Doctors’ Orders

My best friend since 1974 has had three separate, unrelated cancers, two of which were rare and extremely fast and invasive. The first was uterine clear cell adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 1993. (She was 52 at the time and in menopause, which is a particularly vulnerable time for uterine cancer.) The second was a neuro-endocrine colon cancer, which was actually two cancers in one tumor, diagnosed in 2002. http://www.upmc.com/Services/neuroendocrine-cancer/conditions/Pages/neuroendocrine-carcinomas.aspx

She was not expected to survive either cancer. The third cancer, in 2016, was a less virulent breast cancer that she discovered herself. (She has always refused mammograms.)

She survived the first two cancers by choosing to do something that makes sense but also meant a minimum of suffering – she had surgery as soon as possible each time, but no chemo-poison, no radiation, and no radioactive scans (except for one chest X-ray before each surgery, which she was told was required for each surgery to be approved). So she chose only surgery again, but X-rays were not required for the third cancer.

Her first surgeon told her “I start the chemo as soon as my patients’ stitches heal enough to withstand the vomiting.” That certainly made saying “no” easier. She researched carefully to decide what to do, and talked with radiologists as well as with her surgeons. I had had no idea how extremely carcinogenic so many medical tests, such as PET scans and CT scans, were. Years later, I learned that Stanford Medical School teaches that CT scans alone cause 20% of US cancers, but those scans are increasingly used, including on children, often for no real reason.

My friend’s first two surgeons were sometimes caring, but at other times cruel. Both lied when trying to bully her into obeying them. When she had to have an emergency third surgery because the adhesions and scar tissue from the first two surgeries were blocking her colon, the surgeon threatened to refuse surgery unless she submitted to a CT scan. From the hospital bed, even though she knew she would die without surgery, she persisted in arguing against a CT scan. When her lover told the doctor that refusal to do surgery violated the Patient’s Bill of Rights posted in the hospital room, the doctor stopped arguing.

My friend persisted because she knew that the CT scan would have been very risky for her in her weakened condition. Some people are so badly harmed by the iodine-based dye that they die. Some are poisoned from the barium drink or enema. My friend had seen a news interview with the grief-stricken father of a little girl who died after drinking barium for a CT scan. She had refused to drink it until her father, convinced by the doctors that the scan was necessary, pleaded with her, “Please drink it for daddy.”) Right before she died, Gilda Radner screamed to not let the doctors do one more scan on her, saying they would kill her this time. They did. http://www.thewrap.com/read-gene-wilders-heartbreakg-essay-about-wife-gilda-radners-death/

My friend’s experience was that surgeons did not believe or take seriously her existing chronic illness. This is true for many of us, making it even more important to make our own health care decisions. And, of course, my friend knew that radioactive scans greatly suppress the immune system needed to survive cancer.

No doctor she or I have talked with has ever admitted this or warned us that each scan damages the heart, causing Ischemic Heart Disease. (And more women die from heart disease than cancer.) A friend whose father is a well-known oncologist says that all doctors know about scans causing heart disease and more cancer. Again, we are not given informed consent. We had known that every radioactive scan is carcinogenic, but each time we said that to doctors who push mammograms, we have been lied to and told patronizingly that “a mammogram is simply like a day in the sun” or “it’s just like one plane trip.” The last time a doctor said that to me, I answered that nuclear physicist John Gofman wrote that the radiation exposure from a mammogram was like a thousand plane trips. The doctor hesitated before saying “well, not a thousand plane trips….” 4

From the American Academy of Pediatrics: Approximately 50 percent of children who visit hospital emergency departments with head injuries are given a CT scan. CT scanning is associated with radiation exposure that may escalate future cancer risk. CT technology exposes patients to approximately 100 times the radiation of a standard chest X-ray which itself increases the risk of cancer. The recommendation calls for clinical observation prior to making a decision about needing a CT.

One of the worries about cancer is metastases, so that is used to bully people into getting CT and other scans. If I’d been my friend when she was diagnosed with the first cancer, I would have agreed to the scans. But she talked with a radiologist who said that “CT scans are good at finding small round things, but the problem is that bodies are full of small round things.” So scans aren’t reliable for locating metastases. Even after two more cancers, my friend still refuses scans, including mammograms.

Her last surgeon actually listened to her and was much more respectful and caring, but she still tried to push my friend to accept radioactive dye with one test.

Some doctors do care, and many of them have lost their licenses by trying to help their patients. Most just keep the cons going. Yet many doctors make very different choices for themselves than what they recommend for patients: http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die/ideas/nexus/

                            The Politics of Cancer

One of the most important ways to survive cancer is to have a trusted friend to be your advocate to join you in questioning the doctors, help to take notes, think, talk with you, and who will fight for you through it all. Even just trying to remember what the doctors say is difficult when dealing with frightening illnesses. It was far easier for me to be my best friend’s advocate, than to be my own. Another important part is to have a network of friends, as my friend did, who will go to doctor and hospital appointments, donate blood, cook and bring food, and just be a visible presence, which does influence and impress doctors. In my friend’s case, her support was from Lesbian Feminists, including some who had never met her, but sent messages of support and even money to help her pay for what she needed. But this kind of support is rare for Lesbians and brings up why some communities have so much help while others, who have so little, like Lesbians, still donate to richer communities. Generally men get the most support.

Gay men have enormous resources, including entire neighborhoods, countless businesses, restaurants, bars, etc. and other places to be together because of their higher standard of living due to male privilege. Meanwhile, Lesbians have lost everything we had, including all places to meet, like coffee houses, bookstores, bars, etc., and most of us are just struggling to survive. Yet when Gay men who had previously wanted to keep Lesbians from going into their spaces (and even called us “dirty” in Gay and Lesbian newspapers) were in a health crisis from the STD, AIDS, they suddenly demanded our support, including placing ads asking for our cleaner blood. This was in spite of Gay men having kicked dying Lesbians out of the San Francisco Shanti Project (that had been started to help dying Lesbians and Gay men). Lesbians still volunteer and donate to AIDS organizations, bringing in about $15 million annually for the AIDS Lifecycle Ride alone, in spite of there still being nothing comparable for dying or ill Lesbians.

As Jackie Winnow, who, with Joanne Garrett, founded the Women’s Cancer Resource Center in Berkeley, said about cancer and AIDS: ““Both of these diseases are life-threatening and yet I have seen my community rally around one and overlook the other…No one takes care of women or lesbians except women or lesbians, and we have a hard enough time taking care of ourselves, of finding ourselves worthy and important enough for attention.”

Some organizations which used to help women have sold out. Books and articles about the politics of cancer, such as Judy Brady’s work, have disappeared from cancer centers. Susan G. Komen (formerly known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure and originally as The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation) originally was founded to help women diagnose and heal from cancer, but is now in deep with heavily promoting carcinogenic mammograms that also cause heart damage, for profit. Almost every medical agency in the US recommends mammograms, in spite of other countries banning them. “I think if a woman from the age of 50 has a mammogram every year, or every two years, she’s going to get breast cancer as a direct result from that” – Dr. Patrick Kingsley, Clinical Ecologist http://www.getcancercure.com/switzerland-abolished-mammography-screenings-heres-why-you-should-probably-never-get-one/ 5

Such organizations also have been bought out by carcinogenic chemical polluters. Companies that cause cancer make chemo-poison drugs. Similarly, the nuclear industry profits not just from nuclear weapons and power plants, but also from radiation “treatment” and radioactive tests, and so have an invested interest in continuing them. “Treating” cancer brings in big money, but there is no profit in preventing cancer.

Meanwhile, there are organizations, like Breast Cancer Action, which are genuinely fighting breast cancer, while calling out misleading, objectifying, and female-hating advertising put out by what has become the breast cancer industry.6 http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/
https://bcaction.org/2014/09/30/think-before-you-pink-stop-the-distraction/

Another aspect about cancer and politics is that even while the pharmaceutical industry is trying to inoculate every girls with a vaccine against HPV, they are not informing girls and women in school and the media, that HPV is sexually transmitted and can be avoided if most girls and women refuse sexual contact with boys and men. Wouldn’t that be far safer?  But of course, the last thing they want is to stop females from choosing heterosexuality and particularly that kind. (Het feminists in the Sixties and later wrote about the importance of saying no to some kinds of sexual contact with men.)

Another part to this is that before girls and women accepted having penises in their mouths, cancers of the mouth and throat from HPV were rare. But after girls and women were conned into believing that “feminism” meant being “liberated” to be as sexual as possible with as many males as possible, the rates of STDs like HPV increased dramatically, as did the cancers associated with them. (Farah Fawcett died from anal cancer caused by HPV.)

Besides the fact that HPV leads to cervical and other cancers, semen itself can cause cells to change to cancerous. “HPV-based cancer requires not just HPV infection, but also maintenance of atypical cells (that, given long enough tie to procreate eventually produce cancerous cells) by prostaglandins contained in semen.”

The team, led by Dr Henry Jabbour, an Honorary Fellow in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Edinburgh, has found the prostaglandins present in semen can influence the progression of cervical and uterine cancers by enhancing tumour growth.

Prostaglandin is naturally produced by the cells that line the female reproductive organs. Its usual role is to help regulate cell growth. For example, messages passed on from cell to cell by prostaglandin molecules direct the womb lining to either thicken or shed in the monthly menstrual cycle.

However, the concentration of prostaglandin in seminal fluid is 1000 times higher than that normally found in these cells.

Prostaglandin receptor molecules are present on the surface of the cells that make up cervical and uterine cancer tumours. The influx of prostaglandin delivered by semen enhances the normal level of signalling between cells. The high volume starts new cascades of signals that eventually lead to an increase in tumour growth.

Cervical cancer is most common in women who live in the developing world. In the UK, screening programmes detect most abnormal cell changes in women before a tumour develops. Although prostaglandins do not cause cervical cancer (it is usually triggered by long–term human papilloma virus infection), this research shows that seminal fluid can contribute to tumour growth.

Dr Henry Jabbour said:

“Sexually active women who are at risk of cervical or uterine cancer should encourage their partners to wear a condom to prevent increased exposure to the prostaglandins that might make their condition worse.

“It also highlights the potential for a new therapeutic approach that will tackle both possible sources of prostaglandin, those produced naturally by women and those introduced to the body by sperm.”

Story Source: Materials provided by University Of Edinburgh.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060903151304.htm

                         What Are the Real Choices?

It’s assumed that we have two choices to survive cancer, which is to just obey the doctors OR to refuse all medical treatment and do punishing “alternative” regimens that can cause or feed cancer.

Some women are reasonably wary of surgery, and, even more so, of biopsies, because the tumors are then opened up so cells can travel throughout the body, which doctors usually deny. But from what we’ve learned, many who choose surgery do survive, while those who don’t have ended up with growing tumors that interfere with their quality of life, damage organs, and metastasize. Also, cancers secrete substances which protect them from the immune system and help them to grow and spread. If it was possible, I would always choose surgery, which I have had twice when it was suspected I might have ovarian cancer. But in the US, Medicare demands biopsies before approving mastectomies, even when the doctor knows the tumor is cancer, so that is another unnecessary, cruel forced choice that poor women with cancer have to deal with.

My friend’s first surgeon tried to frighten her when she went for follow-up appointments. Only when she saw another gynecological oncologist years later was she told that she didn’t need to keep returning for checkups for years, because a cancer that virulent would already have recurred by then if it was going to. This Lesbian doctor also said that the recommended CT scans were not appropriate follow ups for this kind of cancer. My friend’s own oncologist never wanted to know what she had done to survive, dismissing her with “You’re just lucky!” — which is the response of every doctor I’ve talked to about her. I believe they are afraid to think about or admit how many people they’ve harmed.

In 2002, my friend found out she had another invasive and dangerous rare cancer, neuro-endocrine colon cancer. She has heard people say they don’t know of a single person who has survived it. The only other patient with it that her surgeon knew and treated had died. Again, my friend had surgery and no scans. The surgeon talked her into having half her colon removed instead of just the ileocecal valve where the tumor was clearly located, which turned out to be unnecessary, but which daily limits what she can now eat.

The first surgeon removed a huge number of pelvic lymph nodes, all of which the pathology report showed to be free of cancer. The removal of lymph nodes further weakened my friend’s immune system. It also caused some lymphedema, the effects of which she was not warned about. Lymphedema puts her at high risk of uncontrollable infection from even scratches or insect bites anywhere below the waist. It also means she can’t ever use a hot tub or sauna, even though infra-red saunas that heat the core body temperature and activate the immune system are a good method used to heal from and prevent cancer.

As difficult as the two abdominal surgeries were, she never had to go through the agony that so many suffer from chemo-poison or radiation. I have known too many women who did exactly as the doctors said, some being told they were cancer-free not long after diagnosis and chemo and/or radiation, who died within the year. And much of that year was spent suffering horribly.

Many people die from the “treatment” rather than the cancer. (This is rarely shown in the media – the fictional television series, “The ‘L’ Word,” is an exception.) http://www.naturalnews.com/048682_cancer_industry_chemotherapy_iatrogenic_deaths.html 7

No one I know who has had permanent damage from radiation or chemo-poison was warned about the consequences until afterward, including one woman who was told only after she was irradiated that she could go blind in one eye. It’s not uncommon for people to have permanent bowel incontinence following radiation “treatment,” yet how many are told about such a major change in their future quality of life? That alone is criminal and the medical system should be held accountable.

Another medical horror is when people are given radioactive implants. Not only are they damaging to the body, but they are irradiating other people. (Henrietta Lacks was a victim of this, and the implants made no sense for the cervical cancer she had.) I’ve read an article by a man who was horrified that he was sat in line at the hospital next to a newborn baby after getting an implant, though he’d been told he would need to be in quarantine, away from other people, during his treatment.

People are given very different information about the radioactive implanted “seeds,” depending on the clinic and country. One source insists no seeds from the prostate can be passed to women during “sex,” while another says it does happen.And of course there is no mention about women who are raped and injected with radioactive “seeds” in their uteruses. Are the “seeds” more likely to come out if the “sex” is violent?

When I’ve talked about what I’m discovering about cancer “treatment,” some friends say they know people who have survived by obeying the doctors. I do too, but almost all were relatively young and so had stronger immune systems to fight the cancer as well as the “treatment.”  But they still are vulnerable to future cancers from how poisoned they have been, and some have permanent damage. Whatever works is what we need to do, but how can we decide when doctors are not telling us the truth?

Some people become so invested in mainstream “medicine” that they become abusive if you disagree with them. One woman who obeyed her doctors angrily told my friend, “You don’t know if you still have cancer or not if you’re not getting bone scans.” Sadly, after many bone scans, that woman did not survive. Others have said “It’s okay for you to not do what the doctors say because you don’t have children,” as if she wasn’t trying as hard as she could to survive, and as if those of us who love her don’t matter like “family” does. One fanatic in my community even wished me to die when I said I would never agree to radiation.

My friend was pressured by a lot of people to have chemo-poison and radiation. When I told my mother that my friend had cancer, she yelled, “She’s going to die!  She has to listen to the doctors!”  My mother had been listening to the doctors for years and they eventually killed her. She also had been telling me about the many people where she lived who had cancer, so I asked how they were doing, knowing they’d obeyed the doctors. She went quiet and then said, “They’re all dead.” And they suffered more than they would have if they hadn’t obeyed the doctors’ orders.

Some years later, my mother’s kidneys were destroyed by the drugs her doctor gave her. He even admitted it. She waited a year to go on dialysis and kept saying she felt so sick that she wanted to die. I pleaded with her to stop the drugs, but she wouldn’t, saying “I might die!” Most of twelve drugs she was given were not helping her at all, except for morphine, which relieved both her pain and fear. Her next door neighbor went through the same thing, but stopped the drugs, except for morphine, and within the year, her kidneys recovered. Dialysis was a nightmare for my mother. She talked about how cold she was from what was injected into her veins, and she also spent hours left outside in winter waiting for transportation supposedly covered by her medical insurance. Finally, she went to the hospital because of stomach pain and died, likely from sepsis or something else the doctors did to her. The hospital vehemently did not want an autopsy.

It can be easier to deal with cancer tumors, which have specific locations, but much harder to deal with systemic cancers like lymphomas, leukemia, and multiple myeloma. But even if people choose what the doctors recommend, they still can do their own research and add any herbs or supplements that can help them deal with the harmful effects. What I’m trying to do is to share information and to learn from others. Some countries use methods unknown or ridiculed in the US.  Audre Lorde survived seven years after breast cancer had metastasized to her liver. She went to a clinic in Switzerland where she was treated with Iscador (extracted from mistletoe.)

One of the most important things is to avoid all toxins we do have control over, such as never using pesticides (including herbicides) or drinking from or cooking with plastic, or using toxic scented products, including detergents/fabric softeners, scented candles, etc., which means most personal care products. Most women refuse to make these changes, even when it saves them money.

In the US, most people also do not even seem to realize that what we eat has significant effect on our health, or, even worse, they are forcing themselves to eat what is distasteful because they believe it’s good for them when it’s the opposite. And most doctors push this propaganda, even when the myths have been disproved for years.

Most doctors and clinics continue to recommend that people eat what promotes cancer, like rancid vegetable oils, just as they recently recommended toxic trans fat/margarine, while policing women to stop eating healthier food (like organic saturated fat like butter, lard, and coconut oil.). We have never heard a doctor give advice about how important it is for sick people and everyone else to stop using such toxic products. (Over thirty years ago, some hospitals did have signs asking people to not wear scented products since that affects accessibility, but I’m guessing that the manufacturers, who have tremendous power, put a stop to that.)

We’ve said that my friend has chosen “alternative” healing methods, but just because a business claims to be alternative does not mean it can be trusted any more than the mainstream medical system or be any less insulting and dishonest with patients. Beware the “alternative frauds,” like the chiropractor I know who has made bizarre and terrifying diagnoses she is not remotely qualified to make. She does “applied kinesiology,” which means that she does “muscle testing” after putting vials into patients’ hands, and then gives her diagnoses. After one office visit, she told an ex-lover of mine who had some back pain, that she would soon lose the ability to walk. Not true. Another friend was told she had stomach cancer. Again, not true. Yet another friend simply said this “healer” was “insane” after going to her once. But this chiropractor is still in business, fleecing women under the pretense of being a “feminist” healer.

Some medical doctors also dabble in alternative treatments. One general practitioner who did that declared that obvious signs of growing uterine cancer actually were signs of improvement. (The profuse bleeding had changed to a clear liquid). She advised my friend she didn’t need to see a gynecologist, yet when my friend finally did go, the experienced gynecologist immediately knew it was cancer, easily finding pieces of cancerous tissue during the exam.

Doctors are increasingly recommending cannabis, and, even though I’ve had terrible experiences with it, I was encouraged to go to a cannabis clinic to see if it would help with pain. The people at the dispensary acted similar to most doctors I’ve met, which was patronizing and insulting, and I was given the opposite of what I asked for, which was high CBD with low/no THC. I had a horrific PTSD night. I was also told I should thank the doctor who had stopped my prescription for a safe, non-toxic pain medication because it was so “toxic.” When I asked why they said that when it’s wasn’t true, they answered they meant the acetaminophen, because they assumed I had been prescribed the version with that toxic additive – without bothering to ask, of course. When I asked about the many friends I’ve witnessed who seemed to have severe memory loss and other cognitive problems (like being able to write a coherent sentence) from longtime cannabis use, I was told “maybe you can relax more if there are things you don’t remember.” Seriously?

                   Good Nutrition Versus Fear of Fat

To keep it simple, I check to see what doctors and “alternative healers” recommend people eat, which is a good way to find out if they are simply following fads or if they actually know about nutrition. (If they recommend veganism, low fat, soy, raw kale, etc., I know they cannot be trusted to advise about health.)

Expensive alternative cancer clinics often insist on fasting (self-starving, which is dangerous since cancer is a wasting illness) and becoming vegan and juicing — again a dangerous decision since cancer is fed by sugars/high carbs. It’s also exhausting – a friend with cancer and in pain desperately needed to rest but was juicing five hours a day, following the protocol a fancy fraud clinic told her was essential for survival.

I can’t say how many times I’ve heard someone say they were surprised that a friend died from cancer because they were so careful about their health and were vegan. Why do so many women still believe this propaganda? (Many also still believe the con about saturated fat and cholesterol. Though it was disproved years ago, statin drugs are the biggest drug money-makers, and doctors who prescribe them are substantially rewarded — as Dr. Malcolm Kendrick says, not just with a swimming pool, but hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is in spite of statins causing dementia, cancer, strokes, etc. and people with the highest cholesterol living the longest. Statins could be part of why dementia, once rare, is now epidemic.)
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/books-by-dr-malcolm-kendrick/the-great-cholesterol-con/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jonny-bowden/cholesterol-health_b_2035487.html

Being vegan is not healthy for omnivore animals like humans, and often means eating carcinogenic, thyroid-toxic soy and high carb foods like grains, and not enough saturated fat and protein, which are the highest density nutrition. Besides increasing risk for getting diabetes, being vegan affects your mental and emotional state. I know too many longtime vegans who have chronic spine, joint, and ligament pain and other health problems or have committed suicide after becoming deeply depressed. http://www.lierrekeith.com/book-ex_the-vegetarian-myth.php

I have some dear vegan friends, but most I’ve met have aggressively bullied and shamed other women. It seems to be an extremely trendy way for some privileged people to feel righteously superior.

Vegan criticism of omnivores often deliberately presents false choices, such as that all meat and dairy is full of hormones and antibiotics, which of course are toxic, but why do they assume we’re not choosing organic, pastured meat, dairy, and eggs? Studies done on the supposed toxicity of meat do not differentiate organic, pastured meat from meat full of hormones and antibiotics, or from meat that is highly processed with carcinogens like nitrites and nitrates.

Many medical studies and statistics are equally misleading, so I read carefully before believing anything. An friend worked for a business whose sole purpose was to provide false statistical proof of safety to benefit polluting corporations, like a planned toxic waste incinerator in a poverty-class African-American neighborhood. Scientific statistics go to the highest bidder.

What is behind the propaganda of “low-fat” and “non-fat” is terror about becoming fat, even though eating high saturated fat regulates our metabolism and helps prevent diabetes. The biased, flawed studies that demonize saturated fat have been disproved for decades, yet doctors and mainstream culture still repeat the myths.

The media is constantly refers to increasing “obesity” rates, but rarely mention how so many women in privileged countries are scarily underweight because of dieting. If they get cancer, they won’t have much time to fight it, while weighing more gives you more time. There is also no mention of dieting changing metabolism to increase weight gain and also the effects of eating food cooked and stored in estrogenic plastic.

Fat oppression kills women, in so many ways. From the women who starve themselves to death, to those who are refused adequate medical care, to those who are misdiagnosed, including with cancer and told to just lose weight. 9
http://store.auntlute.com/Shadow-on-a-Tightrope-p219.html
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/medical-fat-shaming-danger/

The diet mentality aimed at women combines with the puritan/protestant pressure to think that punishing your body and depleting your original Chi is somehow not only healthy, but noble. So, even though running/jogging is damaging to the body to the extent that knee and hip replacements are often needed for longtime runners (as well as massive amounts of scans), women who are told they have recovered from cancer are pressured/expected to race marathons, climb mountains, etc. People who want to support cancer victims are also encouraged to join in the runs, walks, and swims that cancer organizations sponsor to get donations (which again are likely to go to the organizations that do not fight cancer).

People trying to survive cancer need their bodies to have energy, and to have an active immune system that is not depleted by over-exercising. Our bodies need to be treated with love, and not like a misbehaving animal that must be subdued and punished. But this “heroic” approach surrounds us in US culture. (An example is when the teenaged Olympian gymnast, Kerri Strug, fractured her ankle, she was praised for continuing even though she could have been permanently disabled as a result.) Of course exercise is important, but it can be regular and gentle, and a way to connect with nature. (I have seen women fighting cancer do fast, steep hiking that I call “death marches,” where they push past what is reasonable and where even other women on the hike are desperately gasping and unable to breathe. The last one I saw do this did not long survive the cancer she was so desperate to outrace.)  It’s best to treat yourself as you would someone you love who is seriously ill, with gentleness and support to stop whenever needed. But gentle exercises and Chi Kung, for instance, are not big business and can be learned from books, as opposed to expensive trendy gyms.

Another aspect of diet/denial mentality is to think we need to eat distasteful food. Some raw foods can be harmful because some plants produce toxins to protect themselves from being eaten. Cooking eliminates some of these poisons. Raw brassicas/cabbage family, like kale, broccoli, and cauliflower, now so popular in potluck and other packaged food brought to events, also damage the thyroid.

My friend did not go to any expensive “alternative” cancer clinics. Because most “alternative” practitioners insisted that meat and fats were highly carcinogenic, she became vegetarian for a while and became increasingly weaker, even though she carefully followed guidelines for good nutrition within the limits of vegetarianism. Finally, she saw a traditional Chinese healer who told her she needed to eat meat and that there was no adequate substitute, so she did and immediately got stronger.

My friend is very careful about what she eats, and eats only organic food, avoiding even processed organic food. She drinks only distilled water or water treated with reverse osmosis, which she stores in glass bottles since water in plastic leaches xenoestrogens. (Neither distilled or reverse osmosis water is ideal, but they are better than regular water filters which do not remove the toxic fluoride or chloramines in our city water.) She also avoids all toxic scented products, though of course she’s still exposed to neighbors’ pesticides/herbicides and toxic laundry products spewing from drier vents, which makes our neighborhoods stink as if factories are nearby. She uses European and Ayurvedic herbs, and Turkeytail mushroom (Trametes Versicolor). She also takes daily walks, does Chi Kung and uses homeopathy.

People often think organic food is too expensive but end up spending more on processed food, not to mention dealing with the cost to their health. Avoiding eating carcinogens can not only significantly change your health, but your quality of life. Again, we have to become experts to find out the truth, such as that even organic soy acts like xenoestrogens, and that trans fats like margarine and vegetable oils like canola, sunflower, safflower, which are all rancid, are carcinogenic and toxic to the heart. Traditional foods like organic lard and organic butter are much safer.  We can literally see how much less healthy US people look now than in the past.

        Iatrogenic Means the IIlness Is Caused by Doctors

One of my friend’s doctors asked why she got cancer again if she was doing what she could to prevent cancer. Besides the immeasurable amounts of pollution we are all exposed to, including nuclear fallout from tests, the deciding factors might have been that her three cancers were iatrogenic. She had been exposed to massive government pesticides as a girl, as well as later (Oakland was sprayed weekly with malathion in 1981 to benefit the agricultural industry, and also neighbors had our yard and home sprayed against our will), but the most glaring toxic exposure she got might have been from an X-ray tech in 1975.

Ironically, her doctor had recommended a pelvic X-ray to make sure a mild pain she was having was not cancer. (It turned out to be a simple cyst that went away by itself.) The procedure was taking much longer than expected, and the tech kept coming back into the room, then eventually asked if she’d had barium. He said the X-ray techs were concerned about a white substance they were watching move through her intestines. This meant repeated X-rays were being taken, or the X-ray machine was left on to observe motion. My friend had taken some dolomite, as a calcium supplement, and that’s what the techs were seeing. This radiation exposure alone could account for both her abdominal cancers.

The first cancer appearing 18 years later fits the usual time frame, as does the fact that, in some studies, neuro-endocrine cancer has been associated with radiation exposure. In addition, it is possible that her mother might have been given DES (Diethylstilbestrol) during pregnancy, which years later was found to cause virulent clear cell cancer in daughters. Again, an iatrogenic cause.

The medical system has been glaringly deficient and criminal, yet we are taught to revere doctors and scientists as gods. Horror stories have been reported, like the doctor with multiple cancer centers, lauded as the top cancer expert in Michigan, who was discovered to be deliberately misdiagnosing people who were cancer-free as having cancer, subjecting them to “treatment” that tortured and maimed them permanently, all for profit. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2015/07/10/farid-fata/29955103/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/michigan-cancer-doctor-sentenced/index.html

The history of radiation should be enough to convince anyone to not trust doctors or the government. Part of the horror is how casual it all is and was.  By 1901, doctors and the government knew about the dangers of radiation, yet women (referred to as “Radium Girls”) were hired for decades to paint radium on clocks and watches. They were told to lick their paintbrushes to have a finer point and that that was perfectly safe. It destroyed their mouths, faces, teeth, bones, and of course caused cancer if they hadn’t already died from radiation poisoning. Some women even pulled their own jaws out of their skulls as they deteriorated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls

The U.S. Radium Corporation hired approximately 70 women to perform various tasks including the handling of radium, while the owners and the scientists familiar with the effects of radium carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves; chemists at the plant used lead screens, masks and tongs. U.S. Radium had distributed literature to the medical community describing the “injurious effects” of radium.

An estimated 4,000 workers were hired by corporations in the U.S. and Canada to paint watch faces with radium. At USRC, each of the painters mixed her own paint in small crucibles, and then used camel hair brushes to apply the glowing paint onto dials. The then-current rate of pay, for painting 250 dials a day, was about a penny and a half per dial (equivalent to $0.280 in 2016). The brushes would lose shape after a few strokes, so the U.S. Radium supervisors encouraged their workers to point the brushes with their lips (“lip, dip, paint”), or use their tongues to keep them sharp. Because the true nature of the radium had been kept from them, the Radium Girls painted their nails, teeth, and faces for fun with the deadly paint produced at the factory. Many of the workers became sick. It is unknown how many died from exposure to radiation.

Radiation sickness

Many of the women later began to suffer from anemia, bone fractures and necrosis of the jaw, a condition now known as radium jaw. It is thought that the X-ray machines used by the medical investigators may have contributed to some of the sickened workers’ ill-health by subjecting them to additional radiation. It turned out at least one of the examinations was a ruse, part of a campaign of disinformation started by the defense contractor. U.S. Radium and other watch-dial companies rejected claims that the afflicted workers were suffering from exposure to radium. For some time, doctors, dentists, and researchers complied with requests from the companies not to release their data. At the urging of the companies, worker deaths were attributed by medical professionals to other causes; syphilis, a notorious sexually transmitted infection at the time, was often cited in attempts to smear the reputations of the women.

https://connecticuthistory.org/waterburys-radium-girls/

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/28/373510029/saved-by-a-bad-taste-one-of-the-last-radium-girls-dies-at-107

By the mid-1920s, dial painters were falling ill by the dozens, afflicted with horrific diseases. The radium they had swallowed was eating their bones from the inside.

There was one woman who the dentist went to pull a tooth and he pulled her entire jaw out when he did it,” says Blum. “Their legs broke underneath them. Their spines collapsed.”

Yet when I was a girl in the Fifties, X-ray machines were installed in shoe stores as a way to bring in customers. Children were particularly targeted in advertising to “play” with the machines. This continued until 1981!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope
http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm

In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the shoe-fitting x-ray unit was a common shoe store sales promotion device and nearly all stores had one.  It was estimated that there were 10,000 of these devices in use.

The radiation hazards associated with shoe fitting x-ray units were recognized as early as 1950. The machines were often out of adjustment and were constructed so radiation leaked into the surrounding area.

By 1970, shoe fitting x-ray units had been banned in 33 states including Minnesota and strict regulation in the remaining 17 states made their operation impractical. Believe it or not, this particular shoe-fitting x-ray unit was found in 1981 in a department store in Madison, West Virginia.  It was still being used in the store’s shoe department!

How many people know that dermatologists not long ago used radiation to “treat” facial hair and acne in women, causing horrific facial cancers?  It was supposed to have stopped in the Forties, but it continued into the Seventies. A dermatologist I saw in 2014 for actinic keratosis, who bragged about torturing small animals in his experiments with his chemo-therapy drug and who ridiculed me for not trusting doctors, still had one of these machines in his office.

http://www.hairfacts.com/hair-removal-methods/doubtful-hair-removal-methods/dietary-supplements-warning/x-ray-hair-removal/

http://www.museumofquackery.com/ephemera/tricho.htm

http://cosmeticsandskin.com/cdc/xray.php

Tricho System victims have been estimated in the thousands. Some ended up severely disfigured, and many required multiple surgeries to remove cancerous growths and tumors. By 1970, one study estimated that over one-third of all radiation-induced cancer in women over a 46-year period could be traced to x-ray hair removal. [6] The characteristic effects were dubbed “North American Hiroshima maiden syndrome” due to similar effects seen in Japanese nuclear bomb survivors.

We should have been taught in school about the criminal and evil history of science and doctors, from the needless and for-profit imprisonment, torture, and killing of animals to the female-hating, racism, classism, and ableism behind so many atrocities, from Mengele to Tuskegee to Guatemala. The Tuskegee “experiment” involved not treating African-descent men who had syphilis, so it spread in their community while they suffered and died. Like Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, doctors at Johns Hopkins’ prestigious “school of medicine,” tortured people in genocidal “experiments.” The US doctors deliberately infected hundreds of Mayan Guatemalans with STDs in (“Subjects were inoculated by injection of syphilis spirochetes into the spinal fluid that bathes the brain and spinal cord, under the skin, and on mucous membranes; a woman from the psychiatric hospital was injected with syphilis, developed skin lesions and wasting, and then had gonorrheal pus from a male subject injected into both of her eyes….”) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/02/johns-hopkins-lawsuit-deliberate-std-infections-guatemala

In another genocidal experiment, US doctors and scientists deliberately infected thousands of Amazonian Indians with measles, killing hundreds — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/sep/23/paulbrown

Is it any wonder that many of us believe this same medical system has created new diseases through deliberate experimentation, like the Nazi doctor, Erich Traub, who worked for US bio-weapons Lab 257, injecting ticks with pathogens that have resulted in incurable Borrelia Burgdorferi/Lyme disease and the co-infections?10

Most people have no idea the extent of Lyme, which like its cousin, Syphilis, imitates many other diseases. Lyme spirochetes have been found in about 90% of Alzheimer’s patients, while the bacteria were virtually absent in healthy age-matched controls. That means that many people who believe they or their loved ones have Alzheimer’s actually have Lyme disease. http://blog.lef.org/2013/12/is-alzheimers-caused-by-infection.html

In spite of the unrelenting propaganda claiming that Lyme has always existed, we know that is not true. People who are old enough, across the US, remember when Lyme disease did not exist, and many of us also never saw ticks. Now, if you step off a trail into grass in certain areas, you will get ticks on you immediately. Even recently, there was misinformation that Lyme hasn’t yet reached states where it actually has been for years. On the East Coast, the spirochete is in Ixodes scapularis, while on the West Coast, it’s Ixodes pacificus. Lyme has also spread to Europe, theoretically traveling in the blood of humans, and has transferred to yet another Ixodes genera tick, Ixodes ricinus (named for the markings on the tick’s abdomen that resembles castor beans/ricinus.)

In Northern China, it’s in Ixodes persulcatus, and in Ixodes granulatus and Ixodes sinensis in Southern China. For those who insist Lyme is ancient, Lyme was first reported in China in 1985, in a forest region of Hailin county, Heilongjiang.

http://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-3305-6-119

http://www.lymedisease.org.au/about-lyme-disease/myths-surrounding-lyme-disease-in-australia/

http://lymepeople.com/lyme-disease-is-found-worldwide/

Since Lyme is transmitted similarly to its cousin, syphilis, it will spread through the blood supply, which is not safe, through sexual contact, and possibly through other vectors, including insects. We are also told Lyme is easily treatable, yet it seems to be chronic and incurable. Even most doctors have no idea.

Some scientists believe that AIDS is a similar bio-weapons creation, although I believe the theory that HIV was inadvertently injected into humans in Africa in 1955 by greedy US doctors who used chimpanzee plasma in making an experimental polio vaccine in the race to have the first live polio vaccine. The researchers knew that chimpanzees were too close genetically to humans to safely use (not to mention the harm to the chimpanzees), which is why they deny using them, though people in Africa who worked for the doctors remember….  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRDsYqvrYgI11

A clever way to discount people questioning medical crimes is to ridicule them, so the first response when learning about another true horror story is to call it “conspiracy theory,” no matter how extensive and proven the history of iatrogenic murder for status, fame and profit is. Never assume that in the US health or justice comes first.

“Anti-vaxxer” maligns people who reasonably question the massive increase in vaccines using known neurotoxic ingredients.

The public doesn’t hear about the … often tragic reactions to vaccines because you can’t sue anyone if you have a bad vaccine reaction.    
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/shingles-vaccine-dangers-exposed-fda-letter-merck

http://www.endagenda21.com/uploads/1/2/5/4/12545535/dangers_of_vaccines_exposed_in_uk_government_transcripts.pdf

Why are girls assumed to be heterosexual and pressured to get toxic vaccines against HPV or might be given them without their knowledge?

….Even if you get HPV vaccine, if you contract one of the 40 or more types of HPV that are sexually transmitted and aren’t included in the vaccine, you will not be protected from HPV infections? http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/24/hpv-vaccine-victim-sues-merck.aspx

Another example is that the Salk polio vaccine doubled cases of polio: http://www.globalpossibilities.org/the-salk-polio-vaccine-tragedy/12

Drugs, like antibiotics, which have been assumed to be safe, can also be extremely toxic. Cipro and the Fluoroquinolones in particular have caused permanent disability. Three friends suffered severe damage from only a short course of Cipro. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/20/fluoroquinolones-side-effects.aspx

http://www.drperlmutter.com/dangers-fluoroquinolones/

The story of how Johns Hopkins profited by using Henrietta Lack’s body cells without asking her or her family’s permission is another example of corrupt “medicine” for profit:  http://rebeccaskloot.com/the-immortal-life/

My aunt, Evelyn Moore, was a sixteen year old victim of the Thirties US eugenics laws (which inspired later German Nazi eugenics), simply for being poor and a “criminal.” (She had been kidnapped by a man and forced to stand by roadsides to lure men to stop so her captor could rob them.) In spite of court cases, like Buck versus Bell, forced sterilization continued against the poor in some states until the Seventies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell This recent documentary records the people who fought to compensate the victims of US eugenics.  http://www.pbs.org/video/2365929201/

After my mother died, I warned other people about how her doctors had harmed her. Every person I spoke with had their own sad horror story of how doctors killed someone they loved.

A feminist doctor I know insists that the medical horror stories and abuse and incompetence all happened “a long time ago,” but the doctor who falsely diagnosed people with cancer was convicted only in 2015. And this was very recent:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html3

Meanwhile, last year, a dear friend was terrorized by her doctor telling her that the nodule on her lung was likely lung cancer. Instead of bothering to ask her regular doctor who knew about her auto-immune illness, which could explain the nodule, this doctor did a biopsy that removed part of her lung and that could have spread cancer if there had been any. My friend still is in pain from the biopsy.

In 2015, when I fell hiking and shattered my wrist, I had to struggle with doctors in the ER to find out if my wrist actually was broken. I was even given a man’s leg X-rays when I asked for my X-rays. (The radiologist not only didn’t apologize, she yanked them from me since I refused to hand them over until they found mine.) Finally, the doctor told me to go as soon as possible to an orthopedic surgeon to get a cast, knowing full well I could not afford the doctor she referred me to. She also did not tell me that my wrist was so shattered and that I needed surgery (not just a cast), which would have saved me permanent health damage and six weeks of suffering and fear. (The second surgeon admitted they tell ER doctors to not to tell patients that they need surgery. Why?)

I had to wait four days with no cast and then went to the local hospital where I was not allowed to see an orthopedic surgeon. The insulting resident gave me ten seconds to explain why I should deserve full use of my wrist at my age. I then went through six weeks of abusive treatment, waiting between four to six hours for each appointment, excruciating pain, bad casts (at one point, one man held me down, another pulled on my thumb as hard as he could, while the doctor pulled and twisted my arm), and finally a bad surgery where I had to wait nine hours without food or water, for what should have been a two hour surgery. At the follow up appointment, after waiting six hours, I had to struggle to be seen by the surgeon who didn’t X-ray the results of his bad surgery. I was expected to wait another four weeks for the results.

Then I was left to be given a cast by a tech who ignored my surgeon’s instructions to leave room for my fingers (which were now frozen and unmovable from the previous bad casts). When I asked why he wasn’t doing what the surgeon ordered, he got as close as he could to my face and leered, “I’m being gentle with you.” Then when I objected to the heavy double cast that smelled like a mixture of perfume and vomit, saying I could not live for a month with that cast, he again got in my face and said “People who claim to have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities should be locked up in mental hospitals.” I had already spent hours being subjected to his strutting around sexually harassing a woman co-worker, demanding she go to the store to get him drinks and cigarettes, and bragging how he used to be a surfer to “get girls.”

I could not afford it, but the next day went to another surgeon who X-rayed my wrist with no protection, said I needed a much more extensive surgery immediately, replaced the cast, and then I had to deal with more emotional abuse. After asking if I was “gay,” (a word I never use since I’m a Lesbian) he did a grand confession, proceeding to tell me he had been Catholic and used to hate “gay people” until he went to a different church with a gay minister he loves and how I should go to his church. I was still terrified about what to do for my wrist, still with no doctor I could trust, and had been in severe pain for over a month, but he cried on me while demanding a hug. I was raised Catholic and didn’t hate anyone. I should have charged him for therapy, but I paid $600 for this experience.

I then finally went to a third orthopedic surgeon who was kind, caring, and competent. But by that time, my hand was irreparably harmed from the weeks of bad casts. It also cost over $13,000. (This same surgeon later missed two fractures in a friend’s thumb though the friend had complained about the pain for months.)

Why Do So Many People Trust the Government to Protect       Us?

When people find out about the truth of so much medical harm, we often ask why. The answer is the same for why our environment and world are being destroyed. As the coalition I work with to save our urban forests from being destroyed explain: Follow the money. That explains most of it, while narcissistic unwillingness to admit error explains the rest. It’s how patriarchy works.

People who are very aware of the ways we are conned still trust lies that they shouldn’t, yet it’s not hard to find out the truth.

As Josef Goebbels said, “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.”

PLEASE, for yourself and those who love you, dare to think and don’t be a mindless consumer, profiting the corporations who are killing us. There is so much we can do for our health. One important thing that also saves money is to stop buying toxic products. Most people choose to live in a stew of stinking, poisonous chemicals because they believe advertisements and think they are dirty if they don’t. They lose the ability to even smell the stench because they get used to it and because the chemicals are neuro-toxic, deadening their sense of smell. (This is similar to smokers don’t know how bad their homes smell.) Many toxic personal care/household products did not even exist in the past, yet most people think they can’t live without them.

All scented products have carcinogenic ingredients, and that includes “organic” essential oils. Mainstream detergents are among the worst, and now that more people are getting sick from them, the companies sell falsely advertised “unscented” and “green” versions that still stink and damage health. Again, we should not have to work so hard to get safe products for our health, but we do. (I have information to share about what is safe because this is also a serious issue of accessibility. Most public places are excruciating for those who are Chemically Injured or have Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, as well as dangerous for people with asthma and COPD. Everyone’s health is damaged, but some people react sooner.)

I forget how bizarre the obviously harmful choices are that some people make, but getting breast implants is another. The ingredients, vinyl, polyurethane foam, silicon, etc., clearly are toxic even without having them surgically implanted, and there has been enough media information showing how they deteriorate and leak in the body, so why do women choose them, other than to attract men and compete with other women?  Is that worth suffering and dying for?  But even worse, women are expected, post-mastectomy, to have “reconstruction” with these carcinogens.

Also, don’t be a consumer of “health” fraud fads either. It’s interesting to go to “health food” stores or, increasingly, go to the “health food” section of mainstream grocery chains and see the outrageously expensive and often unappetizing things sold to people trying to choose healthy food.

My mother and grandmother grew up on organic, high fat food on farms. My mother began eating processed crap later in life and ended up trusting only what came in plastic packaging. I remember when she told me she “hated organic food” and I asked her if she knew what it was. “No!” she said, glaring at me. I explained it was the pure, unpoisoned (by pesticides or toxic fertilizers) food she grew up with on farms that she always said tasted much better than what we later ate. But she’d learned to be suspicious of it without even knowing what it was. Near the end of her life she was basically starving because she obeyed her doctor, eating synthetic poison like “Ensure” and trans fat in margarine, as well as low-fat dairy, which is high in sugars but low in nutrition. (Expensive “Meals on Wheels” brought her toxic trans fat, low-fat milk, etc., even after New York City had banned trans fat. It’s particularly bad for people with heart damage, which includes most of their customers, who are old people. When I talked with the company, they simply didn’t care because they were more concerned about profit than health.)

It is so simple for sighted people to read labels, but few bother to. Living in a political system that is based on prioritizing money, no matter how much people and the environment are harmed, means we can’t trust what we are sold. I remember when whole wheat bread became popular and soon mainstream supermarkets were selling bread with a large label saying “wheat bread” at a time when all bread was of course made from wheat. This “wheat bread” was the usual bleached, denatured white bread with added caramel coloring. People bought it thinking they were choosing whole wheat. (I never buy food from supermarkets, which also stinks from all the toxic products they sell.)

Another con is when a product says “organic,” but only one ingredient is organic. Many people believe that products called “natural” are organic and safe, but, legally, “natural” means nothing.

People need to think and stop believing the lies that claim that what is not healthy is, and what is healthy is not. People are shamed into giving up their traditional foods like lard, which is used in many cultures and is extremely healthy and helps balance blood sugar, preventing diabetes. Now trendy “Mexican” restaurants owned by white entrepreneurs brag that they use canola or other rancid, carcinogenic vegetable oils instead, as if it’s healthy and not toxic.

One of the most nutritious foods, eggs, is also demonized. I’ve had friends who would never dream of believing the medical system that once called Lesbians “mentally ill” still believing doctors about nutrition, even though doctors aren’t taught basic nutrition. Egg yolks are removed and people are conned into buying expensive egg whites, and then the yolks are sold back to people in a variety of expensive products, from pastries to ice cream.

Cottonseed oil is illegal to sell as food because many more pesticides are allowed to be used on cotton, but it’s still included as the oil in popular products, like Pepperidge Farms cookies and Crisco (“crystalized cottonseed oil”).

GMO products are even more harmful than the usual non-organic, but naïve people believe that if a product says “no GMO” on the label it means it’s organic. Similarly, some believe labels saying “no BGH – Bovine Growth Hormone” on dairy products means there aren’t the usual other growth hormones or antibiotics added, which of course they are.

And no, giving up and saying “everything causes cancer” doesn’t help, because we do have a lot of choices that makes a huge difference not only in how long we live, but again, our quality of life and how we feel each day of our lives. Besides, avoiding toxic foods sends an important message from consumers to the food industry, in the only language they understand — money. We refuse to be conned and we will not pay for poison.

My friend is still available to share information and give support to women. If you want her number, email me through my blog at https://bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/

Also, we’d like to know if other women have chosen similarly as she did and how they are doing.

 

Endnotes

  1.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html

Radiation Offers New Cures, and Ways to Do Harm

By WALT BOGDANICHJAN. 23, 2010

As Scott Jerome-Parks lay dying, he clung to this wish: that his fatal radiation overdose — which left him deaf, struggling to see, unable to swallow, burned, with his teeth falling out, with ulcers in his mouth and throat, nauseated, in severe pain and finally unable to breathe — be studied and talked about publicly so that others might not have to live his nightmare.

Sensing death was near, Mr. Jerome-Parks summoned his family for a final Christmas. His friends sent two buckets of sand from the beach where they had played as children so he could touch it, feel it and remember better days.

Mr. Jerome-Parks died several weeks later in 2007. He was 43.

A New York City hospital treating him for tongue cancer had failed to detect a computer error that directed an accelerator to blast his brain stem and neck with errant beams of radiation. Not once, but on three consecutive days.

Soon after the accident, at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Manhattan, state health officials cautioned hospitals to be extra careful with linear accelerators, machines that generate beams of high-energy radiation.

But on the day of the warning, at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, a 32-year-old breast cancer patient named Alexandra Jn-Charles absorbed the first of 27 days of radiation overdoses, each three times the prescribed amount. A linear accelerator with a missing filter would burn a hole in her chest, leaving a gaping wound so painful that this mother of two young children considered suicide.

Ms. Jn-Charles and Mr. Jerome-Parks died a month apart. Both experienced the wonders and the brutality of radiation. It helped diagnose and treat their disease. It also inflicted unspeakable pain.

Yet while Mr. Jerome-Parks had hoped that others might learn from his misfortune, the details of his case — and Ms. Jn-Charles’s — have until now been shielded from public view by the government, doctors and the hospital.

Americans today receive far more medical radiation than ever before. The average lifetime dose of diagnostic radiation has increased sevenfold since 1980, and more than half of all cancer patients receive radiation therapy. Without a doubt, radiation saves countless lives, and serious accidents are rare.

But patients often know little about the harm that can result when safety rules are violated and ever more powerful and technologically complex machines go awry. To better understand those risks, The New York Times examined thousands of pages of public and private records and interviewed physicians, medical physicists, researchers and government regulators.

The Times found that while this new technology allows doctors to more accurately attack tumors and reduce certain mistakes, its complexity has created new avenues for error — through software flaws, faulty programming, poor safety procedures or inadequate staffing and training. When those errors occur, they can be crippling.

“Linear accelerators and treatment planning are enormously more complex than 20 years ago,” said Dr. Howard I. Amols, chief of clinical physics at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. But hospitals, he said, are often too trusting of the new computer systems and software, relying on them as if they had been tested over time, when in fact they have not.

Regulators and researchers can only guess how often radiotherapy accidents occur. With no single agency overseeing medical radiation, there is no central clearinghouse of cases. Accidents are chronically underreported, records show, and some states do not require that they be reported at all.

In June, The Times reported that a Philadelphia hospital gave the wrong radiation dose to more than 90 patients with prostate cancer — and then kept quiet about it. In 2005, a Florida hospital disclosed that 77 brain cancer patients had received 50 percent more radiation than prescribed because one of the most powerful — and supposedly precise — linear accelerators had been programmed incorrectly for nearly a year.

Dr. John J. Feldmeier, a radiation oncologist at the University of Toledo and a leading authority on the treatment of radiation injuries, estimates that 1 in 20 patients will suffer injuries.

Most are normal complications from radiation, not mistakes, Dr. Feldmeier said. But in some cases the line between the two is uncertain and a source of continuing debate.

“My suspicion is that maybe half of the accidents we don’t know about,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., who has investigated radiation accidents around the world and has written books on medical radiation.

Identifying radiation injuries can be difficult. Organ damage and radiation-induced cancer might not surface for years or decades, while under dosing is difficult to detect because there is no injury. For these reasons, radiation mishaps seldom result in lawsuits, a barometer of potential problems within an industry.

In 2009, the nation’s largest wound care company treated 3,000 radiation injuries, most of them serious enough to require treatment in hyperbaric oxygen chambers, which use pure, pressurized oxygen to promote healing, said Jeff Nelson, president and chief executive of the company, Diversified Clinical Services.

While the worst accidents can be devastating, most radiation therapy “is very good,” Dr. Mettler said. “And while there are accidents, you wouldn’t want to scare people to death where they don’t get needed radiation therapy.”

Because New York State is a leader in monitoring radiotherapy and collecting data about errors, The Times decided to examine patterns of accidents there and spent months obtaining and analyzing records. Even though many accident details are confidential under state law, the records described 621 mistakes from 2001 to 2008. While most were minor, causing no immediate injury, they nonetheless illuminate underlying problems.

The Times found that on 133 occasions, devices used to shape or modulate radiation beams — contributing factors in the injuries to Mr. Jerome-Parks and Ms. Jn-Charles — were left out, wrongly positioned or otherwise misused.

On 284 occasions, radiation missed all or part of its intended target or treated the wrong body part entirely. In one case, radioactive seeds intended for a man’s cancerous prostate were instead implanted in the base of his penis. Another patient with stomach cancer was treated for prostate cancer. Fifty patients received radiation intended for someone else, including one brain cancer patient who received radiation intended for breast cancer.

New York health officials became so alarmed about mistakes and the underreporting of accidents that they issued a special alert in December 2004, asking hospitals to be more vigilant.

As this warning circulated, Mr. Jerome-Parks was dealing with what he thought was a nagging sinus infection. He would not know until two months later that cancer had been growing at the base of his tongue. It was a surprising diagnosis for a relatively young man who rarely drank and did not smoke. 

In time, his doctors and family came to suspect that his cancer was linked to the neighborhood where he had once worked, on the southern tip of Manhattan, in the shadow of the World Trade Center.

Several years before, he had taken a job there as a computer and systems analyst at CIBC World Markets. His starting date: September 2001.

Diagnosis and Treatment

What Mr. Jerome-Parks most remembered about Sept. 11, his friends say, were bodies falling from the sky, smashing into the pavement around him. He was particularly haunted by the memory of a man dressed in a suit and tie, plummeting to his death.

In the days and weeks that followed, Mr. Jerome-Parks donated blood, helped a family search for a missing relative and volunteered at the Red Cross, driving search-and-rescue workers back and forth from what became known as “the pile.” Whether toxic dust from the collapsed towers caused his cancer may never be known, though his doctor would later say he believed there was a link.

Mr. Jerome-Parks approached his illness as any careful consumer would, evaluating the varied treatment options in a medical mecca like New York. Yet in the end, what led him to St. Vincent’s, the primary treatment center for Sept. 11 victims, was a recommendation from an acquaintance at his church, which had become an increasingly important part of his life.

For his last Christmas, Scott Jerome-Parks rested his feet in buckets of sand his friends had sent from a childhood beach.

The Church of St. Francis Xavier in Manhattan, known for its social advocacy, reflected how much Mr. Jerome-Parks had changed from his days in Gulfport, Miss., where he was raised in a conservative family, eventually moving to Toronto and then New York, where he met his Canadian-born wife, Carmen, a dancer, singer and aspiring actress.

In turning to St. Vincent’s, Mr. Jerome-Parks selected a hospital that had been courting cancer patients as a way to solidify its shaky financial standing.

Its cancer unit, managed by Aptium Oncology, a unit of one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, AstraZeneca, was marketing a new linear accelerator as though it had Mr. Jerome-Parks specifically in mind. Its big selling point was so-called smart-beam technology.

“When the C.F.O. of a New York company was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor at the base of his tongue,” promotional material for the new accelerator stated, “he also learned that conventional radiation therapy could potentially cure him, but might also cause serious side effects.”

The solution, the advertisement said, was a linear accelerator with 120 computer-controlled metal leaves, called a multileaf collimator, which could more precisely shape and modulate the radiation beam. (View an interactive graphic demonstrating how multileaf collimators work, and how problems at St. Vincent’s caused a fatal overdose.) This treatment is called Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, or I.M.R.T. The unit St. Vincent’s had was made by Varian Medical Systems, a leading supplier of radiation equipment.

“The technique is so precise, we can treat areas that would have been considered much too risky before I.M.R.T., too close to important critical structures,” Dr. Anthony M. Berson, St. Vincent’s chief radiation oncologist, said in a 2001 news release.

The technology addressed a vexing problem in radiation therapy — how to spare healthy cells while killing cancerous ones.

Radiation fights cancer by destroying the genetic material that controls how cells grow and divide. Even under the best of circumstances, though, it carries a risk, much like surgery or chemotherapy.

The most accurate X-ray beams must pass through healthy tissue to penetrate the tumor before exiting the body. Certain body parts and certain people are more sensitive to radiation. According to research by Dr. Eric J. Hall of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University, even accurate I.M.R.T. treatments, when compared with less technically advanced linear accelerators, may nearly double the risk of secondary cancer later in life due to radiation leakage.

When therapeutic errors enter the picture, the risk multiplies. An underdose allows the targeted cancer to grow, while an overdose can burn and cause organ damage.

While most radiation burns are mild, comparable to a sunburn, larger doses can damage the cells lining small blood vessels, depriving the skin and soft tissue of nourishment. The result is a wound that resists healing.

“Not only do you lose the blood vessels, but the tissue becomes chronically inflamed, which can lead to scarring,” said Robert Warriner III, chief medical officer of Diversified Clinical Services, the wound care company.

After soft-tissue injury, bone death in the head and jaw is the second most common radiation injury that Diversified Clinical treats.

At their worst, radiation injuries can cause organ failure and death.

Dr. Salvatore M. Caruana, then a head and neck surgeon at St. Vincent’s, gave Mr. Jerome-Parks another option: surgery.

“I wanted him to have laser resection,” Dr. Caruana, now at New York-Presbyterian Columbia University Medical Center, said in an interview.

In the end, Mr. Jerome-Parks chose radiation, with chemotherapy.

His wife would later tell friends that she wondered whether St. Vincent’s was the best place for him, given that the world-renowned Memorial Sloan-Kettering was nearby. But she did not protest. His mind was made up, and there was no time to lose. His cancer was advancing, and smart-beam technology promised to stop it.

A Plan Goes Wrong

On a brisk day in March 2005, Mr. Jerome-Parks prepared for his fifth radiation session at St. Vincent’s. The first four had been delivered as prescribed. Now Dr. Berson wanted the plan reworked to give more protection to Mr. Jerome-Parks’s teeth.

Radiation can damage saliva glands, and if saliva stops flowing, tooth decay and infections become a significant risk. Coupled with bone weakness from radiation, the simple act of extracting a tooth can lead to destruction of the lower jaw and ultimately its removal, doctors say.

Dr. Edward Golembe, who directs a hyperbaric oxygen chamber at Brookdale University Hospital in Brooklyn, said he had treated serious radiation injuries to the jaw and called them “a horrible, horrible thing to see.”

Tasked with carrying out Dr. Berson’s new plan was Nina Kalach, a medical physicist. In the world of radiotherapy, medical physicists play a vital role in patient safety — checking the calibration of machines, ensuring that the computer delivers the correct dose to the proper location, as well as assuming other safety tasks.

Creating the best treatment plan takes time. “A few years ago, we had computers that would take overnight to actually come up with a good treatment plan,” said Dr. David Pearson, a medical physicist who works with Dr. Feldmeier’s radiotherapy team at the University of Toledo. Faster computers have shortened that process.

“But we still need to be able to verify that what the computer has actually come up with is accurate,” Dr. Pearson said. “The first time it tries to solve the problem, it may not come up with the best solution, so we tell it, O.K., these are the areas that need to be fixed.”

A few months before Mr. Jerome-Parks’s treatment, New York State health officials reminded hospitals that I.M.R.T. required a “significant time commitment” on the part of their staffs.

“Staffing levels should be evaluated carefully by each registrant,” the state warned, “to ensure that coverage is sufficient to prevent the occurrence of treatment errors and misadministrations.”

On the morning of March 14, Ms. Kalach revised Mr. Jerome-Parks’s treatment plan using Varian software. Then, with the patient waiting in the wings, a problem arose, state records show.

Shortly after 11 a.m., as Ms. Kalach was trying to save her work, the computer began seizing up, displaying an error message. The hospital would later say that similar system crashes “are not uncommon with the Varian software, and these issues have been communicated to Varian on numerous occasions.”

An error message asked Ms. Kalach if she wanted to save her changes before the program aborted. She answered yes. At 12:24 p.m., Dr. Berson approved the new plan.

Meanwhile, two therapists were prepping Mr. Jerome-Parks for his procedure, placing a molded mask over his face to immobilize his head.

Then the room was sealed, with only Mr. Jerome-Parks inside.

At 12:57 p.m. — six minutes after yet another computer crash — the first of several radioactive beams was turned on.

The next day, there was a second round of radiation.

A friend from church, Paul Bibbo, stopped by the hospital after the second treatment to see how things were going.

Mr. Bibbo did not like what he saw. Walking into a darkened hospital room, he recalled blurting out: “‘My goodness, look at him.’ His head and his whole neck were swollen.”

Anne Leonard, another friend, saw it, too, on a later visit. “I was shocked because his head was just so blown up,” Ms. Leonard said. “He was in the bed, and he was writhing from side to side and moaning.”

At a loss for what to do, Ms. Leonard said, “I just stood at the foot of the bed in the dark and prayed.”

In a panic, Ms. Jerome-Parks called Tamara Weir-Bryan, a longtime friend from Toronto with nursing experience. Something was not right, she said. Then, as Ms. Weir-Bryan tells it: “She called me again, in agony, ‘Please believe me. His face is so blown up. It’s dreadful. There is something wrong.’ ”

At Ms. Jerome-Parks’s suggestion, Ms. Weir-Bryan said she called the hospital, identified herself as a nurse and insisted that someone check on Mr. Jerome-Parks. If anything was done, it was not enough.

The next day, the hospital sent a psychiatrist to speak to Ms. Jerome-Parks, according to the hospital. A couple of hours later, her husband received yet another round of radiation.

Overdosed on Radiation

The Times has pieced together this account of what happened to Mr. Jerome-Parks largely from interviews with doctors who had been consulted on the case, six friends who cared for and comforted him, contemporaneous e-mail messages and Internet postings, and previously sealed government records. His wife declined to be interviewed about the case, as did Ms. Kalach, the medical physicist, and representatives of Aptium, Varian and St. Vincent’s.

In a statement, the hospital called the case an “unfortunate event” that “occurred as a result of a unique and unanticipated combination of issues.”

On the afternoon of March 16, several hours after Mr. Jerome-Parks received his third treatment under the modified plan, Ms. Kalach decided to see if he was being radiated correctly.

So at 6:29 p.m., she ran a test to verify that the treatment plan was carried out as prescribed. What she saw was horrifying: the multileaf collimator, which was supposed to focus the beam precisely on his tumor, was wide open.

A little more than a half-hour later, she tried again. Same result.

Finally, at 8:15 p.m., Ms. Kalach ran a third test. It was consistent with the first two. A frightful mistake had been made: the patient’s entire neck, from the base of his skull to his larynx, had been exposed.

Early the next afternoon, as Mr. Jerome-Parks and his wife were waiting with friends for his fourth modified treatment, Dr. Berson unexpectedly appeared in the hospital room. There was something he had to tell them. For privacy, he took Mr. Jerome-Parks and his wife to a lounge on the 16th floor, where he explained that there would be no more radiation.

Mr. Jerome-Parks had been seriously overdosed, they were told, and because of the mistake, his prognosis was dire.

Stunned and distraught, Ms. Jerome-Parks left the hospital and went to their church, a few blocks away. “She didn’t know where else to go,” recalled Ms. Leonard, their friend.

The next day, Ms. Jerome-Parks asked two other friends, Nancy Lorence and Linda Giuliano, a social worker, to sit in on a meeting with Dr. Berson and other hospital officials.

During the meeting, the medical team took responsibility for what happened but could only speculate about the patient’s fate. They knew the short-term effects of acute radiation toxicity: burned skin, nausea, dry mouth, difficulty swallowing, loss of taste, swelling of the tongue, ear pain and hair loss. Beyond that, it was anyone’s guess when the more serious life-threatening symptoms would emerge.

“They were really holding their breath because it was the brain stem and he could end up a paraplegic and on a respirator,” Ms. Giuliano said.

Ms. Lorence added: “I don’t really think they expected Scott to live more than two months or three months.”

The group was told that doctors were already searching for tips on how to manage what promised to be a harrowing journey not only for the patient and his family, but also for the physicians and staff members involved in his care.

The full investigation into why Mr. Jerome-Parks had received seven times his prescribed dose would come later. For now, there was nothing left to say.

As Dr. Berson rose to leave the room, Ms. Lorence noticed that his back was soaked in sweat.

A Warning Goes Unheeded

Rene Jn-Charles remembers where he was and how she looked on that joyful day — his wife, Alexandra, the mother of their two young children, in brown jeans and a brown top, standing in front of him at the corner of Lincoln Place and Utica Avenue in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn.

“Babes,” she said. “I have no cancer. I am free.”

Her doctor had called with the good news, she said. A seemingly unbearable weight had been lifted. Now after breast surgery and chemotherapy, she faced only radiation, although 28 days of it.

Ms. Jn-Charles had been treated for an aggressive form of breast cancer at a hospital with a very different patient profile from the one selected by Mr. Jerome-Parks. Unlike St. Vincent’s, on the edge of Greenwich Village, the Downstate Medical Center’s University Hospital of Brooklyn is owned by the state and draws patients from some of Brooklyn’s poorer neighborhoods.

Ms. Jn-Charles’s treatment plan also called for a linear accelerator. But instead of a multileaf collimator, it used a simpler beam-modifying device called a wedge, a metallic block that acts as a filter.

In the four years before Ms. Jn-Charles began treatment, 21 accidents in New York State were linked to beam-modifying devices, including wedges, records show.

On April 19, 2005, the day Ms. Jn-Charles showed up for her first radiation treatment, state health officials were still so worried about what had happened to Mr. Jerome-Parks that they issued an alert, reminding operators of linear accelerators “of the absolute necessity to verify that the radiation field is of the appropriate size and shape prior to the patient’s first treatment.”

In legal papers before she died, Ms. Jn-Charles explained how the radiation therapist had told her not to worry. “It’s not painful — that it’s just like an X-ray,” she said she was told. “There may be a little reaction to the skin. It may break out a little, and that was basically it.”

‘A Big Hole in My Chest’

For a while, all seemed well. Then, toward the end of therapy, Ms. Jn-Charles began to develop a sore on her chest. It seemed to get worse by the day. “I noticed skin breaking out,” she would later say. “It was peeling. It started small but it quickly increased.”

When Ms. Jn-Charles showed up for her 28th and final treatment, the therapist took her to see Dr. Alan Schulsinger, a radiation oncologist. “He just said that they wouldn’t give me any radiation today, and he gave me the ointment and stuff and said go home and come back in a couple of days,” Ms. Jn-Charles said.

Scott Jerome-Parks, with his wife, Carmen, was 43 when he died in 2007 from a radiation overdose.

A couple of days later, she returned. “More skin was peeling off, and going down into the flesh,” Ms. Jn-Charles said. Once again, she was told to go home and return later.

On June 8, 2005, the hospital called her at home, requesting that she come in because the doctors needed to talk to her. Fourteen days after her last treatment, the hospital decided to look into the possible causes of her injury, hospital records show.

It did not take long. The linear accelerator was missing a vital command — to insert the wedge. Without it, the oncology team had been mistakenly scalding Ms. Jn-Charles with three and a half times the prescribed radiation dose during each session.

At the hospital, doctors gave her the bad news, and later sent a letter to her home. “I am writing to offer our deepest apologies once again for the devastating events that occurred,” Dr. Richard W. Freeman, chief medical officer, said in the June 17 letter. “There is now a risk of injury to your chest wall, including your skin, muscle, bone and a small portion of lung tissue.”

Ms. Jn-Charles had been harmed by a baffling series of missteps, records show.

One therapist mistakenly programmed the computer for “wedge out” rather than “wedge in,” as the plan required. Another therapist failed to catch the error. And the physics staff repeatedly failed to notice it during their weekly checks of treatment records.

Even worse, therapists failed to notice that during treatment, their computer screen clearly showed that the wedge was missing. Only weeks earlier, state health officials had sent a notice, reminding hospitals that therapists “must closely monitor” their computer screens.

“The fact that therapists failed to notice ‘wedge OUT’ on 27 occasions is disturbing,” Dr. Tobias Lickerman, director of the city’s Radioactive Materials Division, wrote in a report on the incident. The hospital declined to discuss the case.

The overdose resulted in a wound that would not heal. Instead, it grew, despite dozens of sessions in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber. Doctors tried surgery. The wound would not close. So they operated a second, a third and a fourth time. In one operation, Ms. Jn-Charles’s chest wall was reconstructed using muscle from her back and skin from her leg.

“I just had a big hole in my chest,” she would say. “You could just see my ribs in there.”

She saw herself falling away. “I can’t even dress myself, pretty much,” she said. “I used to be able to take care of my kids and do stuff for them, and I can’t do these things anymore.”

Her husband remembers one night when the children heard their mother crying. They came running, frightened, pleading: “Tell me, Daddy, what happened to Mommy? Say she’s O.K., she’s O.K.”

For more than a year, Ms. Jn-Charles was repeatedly hospitalized for pain and lived with the odor of her festering wound. Meanwhile, her cancer returned with a vengeance.

Several months after her wound had finally healed, she died.

No Fail-Safe Mechanism

The investigation into what happened to Mr. Jerome-Parks quickly turned to the Varian software that powered the linear accelerator.

The software required that three essential programming instructions be saved in sequence: first, the quantity or dose of radiation in the beam; then a digital image of the treatment area; and finally, instructions that guide the multileaf collimator.

When the computer kept crashing, Ms. Kalach, the medical physicist, did not realize that her instructions for the collimator had not been saved, state records show. She proceeded as though the problem had been fixed.

“We were just stunned that a company could make technology that could administer that amount of radiation — that extreme amount of radiation — without some fail-safe mechanism,” said Ms. Weir-Bryan, Ms. Jerome-Parks’s friend from Toronto. “It’s always something we keep harkening back to: How could this happen? What accountability do these companies have to create something safe?”

Even so, there were still opportunities to catch the mistake.

It was customary — though not mandatory — that the physicist would run a test before the first treatment to make sure that the computer had been programmed correctly. Yet that was not done until after the third overdose.

State officials said they were told that the hospital waited so long to run the test because it was experiencing “a staffing shortage as training was being provided for the medical physicists,” according to a confidential internal state memorandum on the accident.

There was still one final chance to intervene before the overdose. All the therapists had to do was watch the computer screen — it showed that the collimator was open. But they were not watching the screen, and in fact hospital rules included no specific instructions that they do so. Instead, their eyes were fastened on Mr. Jerome-Parks, out of concern that he might vomit into the mask that stabilized his head. Earlier, he had been given a drug known to produce nausea, to protect his salivary glands.

Government investigators ended up blaming both St. Vincent’s, for failing to catch the error, and Varian, for its flawed software.

The hospital said it “acted swiftly and effectively to respond to the event, and worked closely with the equipment manufacturer and the regulatory agencies.”

Timothy E. Guertin, Varian’s president and chief executive, said in an interview that after the accident, the company warned users to be especially careful when using their equipment, and then distributed new software, with a fail-safe provision, “all over the world.”

But the software fix did not arrive in time to help a woman who, several months later, was being radiated for cancer of the larynx. According to F.D.A. records, which did not identify the hospital or the patient, therapists tried to save a file on Varian equipment when “the system’s computer screen froze.”

The hospital went ahead and radiated the patient, only to discover later that the multileaf collimator had been wide open. The patient received nearly six times her prescribed dose. In this case, the overdose was caught after one treatment and the patient was not injured, according to Mr. Guertin, who declined to identify the hospital.

“The event at the hospital happened before the modification was released,” he said.

Mr. Guertin said Varian did 35 million treatments a year, and in 2008 had to file only about 70 reports of potential problems with the Food and Drug Administration.

Accidents and Accountability

Patients who wish to vet New York radiotherapy centers before selecting one cannot do so, because the state will not disclose where or how often medical mistakes occur.

To encourage hospitals to report medical mistakes, the State Legislature — with the support of the hospital industry — agreed in the 1980s to shield the identity of institutions making those mistakes. The law is so strict that even federal officials who regulate certain forms of radiotherapy cannot, under normal circumstances, have access to those names.

Even with this special protection, the strongest in the country, many radiation accidents go unreported in New York City and around the state. After The Times began asking about radiation accidents, the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reminded hospitals in July of their reporting obligation under the law. Studies of radiotherapy accidents, the city pointed out, “appear to be several orders of magnitude higher than what is being reported in New York City, indicating serious underreporting of these events.”

The Times collected summaries of radiation accidents that were reported to government regulators, along with some that were not. Those records show that inadequate staffing and training, failing to follow a good quality-assurance plan and software glitches have contributed to mistakes that affected patients of varying ages and ailments.

For example, a 14-year-old girl received double her prescribed dose for 10 treatments because the facility made a faulty calculation and then did not follow its policy to verify the dose. A prostate cancer patient was radiated in the wrong spot on 32 of 38 treatments, while another prostate patient at the same institution received 19 misguided treatments — all because the hospital did not test a piece of equipment after repairs.

In March 2007, at Clifton Springs Hospital and Clinic in upstate New York, a 31-year-old vaginal cancer patient was over-radiated by more than 80 percent by an inexperienced radiotherapy team, putting her at risk for a fistula formation between the rectum and vagina. Afterward, she received antibiotics and treatments in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber.

While being treated for breast cancer, Ms. Jn-Charles was over radiated for 27 days, burning a gaping hole in her chest. The photos of the wound’s progression were used on a poster presented at a medical convention.

In 2008, at Stony Brook University Medical Center on Long Island, Barbara Valenza-Gorman, 63, received 10 times as much radiation as prescribed in one spot, and one-tenth of her prescribed dose in another. Ms. Valenza-Gorman was too sick to continue her chemotherapy and died of cancer several months later, a family member said. The therapist who made those mistakes was later reprimanded in another case for failing to document treatment properly.

The therapist not only continues to work at the hospital, but has also trained other workers, according to records and hospital employees. A spokeswoman for Stony Brook said privacy laws precluded her from discussing specifics about patient care or employees.

Other therapists have had problems, too.

Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx fired a therapist, Annette Porter, accusing her of three mistakes, including irradiating the wrong patient, according to a government report on June 1, 2007. Ms. Porter retains her license.

“We know nothing about that person — zero,” said John O’Connell, an associate radiologic technology specialist with the State Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection, the agency that licenses technologists.

Montefiore declined to comment. Ms. Porter, through her lawyer, denied making the three mistakes.

Fines or license revocations are rarely used to enforce safety rules. Over the previous eight years, despite hundreds of mistakes, the state issued just three fines against radiotherapy centers, the largest of which was $8,000.

Stephen M. Gavitt, who directs the state’s radiation division, said if mistakes did not involve violations of state law, fines were not proper. The state does require radiotherapy centers to identify the underlying causes of accidents and make appropriate changes to their quality-assurance programs. And state officials said New York had taken a leadership role in requiring that each facility undergo an external audit by a professional not connected to the institution.

Two years ago, the state warned medical physicists attending a national conference that an over-reliance on computer programs might be leading to mistakes, including patient mix-ups. “You have to be ever-vigilant,” Mr. O’Connell said.

The state imposed no punishment for the overdoses of Mr. Jerome-Parks or Ms. Jn-Charles. The city levied fines of $1,000 against St. Vincent’s and $1,500 against University Hospital of Brooklyn.

Irreparable Damage

Mr. Jerome-Parks needed powerful pain medicine soon after his overdose.

Yet pain was hardly the worst of it. Apart from barely being able to sleep or swallow, he had to endure incessant hiccupping, vomiting, a feeding tube, a 24-hour stream of drugs and supplements. And apart from all that, he had to confront the hard truth about serious radiation injuries: there is no magic bullet, no drug, no surgery that can fix the problem.

“The cells damaged in that area are not reparable,” Ms. Jerome-Parks reported to friends in an e-mail message shortly after the accident. National radiation specialists who were consulted could offer no comfort. Hyperbaric oxygen treatments may have helped slightly, but it was hard to tell.

“He got so much radiation — I mean this was, in the order of magnitude, a big mistake,” said Dr. Jerome B. Posner, a neurologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering who consulted on the case at the request of the family. “There are no valid treatments.”

Though he had been grievously harmed, Mr. Jerome-Parks bore no bitterness or anger.

“You don’t really get to know somebody,” said Ms. Leonard, the friend from church, “until you see them go through something like this, and he was just a pillar of strength for all of us.”

Mr. Jerome-Parks appreciated the irony of his situation: that someone who earned a living solving computer problems would be struck down by one.

He grew closer to his oncologist, Dr. Berson, who had overseen the team that caused his injury. “He and Dr. Berson had very realistically talked about what was going to happen to him,” said his father, James Parks.

Ms. Jerome-Parks, who was providing her husband round-the-clock care, refused to surrender. “Prayer is stronger than radiation,” she wrote in the subject line of an e-mail message sent to friends. Prayer groups were formed, and Mass was celebrated in his hospital room on their wedding anniversary.

Yet there was no stopping his inevitable slide toward death.

“Gradually, you began to see things happening,” said Ms. Weir-Bryan, the friend from Toronto, who helped care for him. “His eyes started to go, his hearing went, his balance.”

Ms. Giuliano, another of the couple’s friends, believed that Mr. Jerome-Parks knew prayer would not be enough.

“At some point, he had to turn the corner, and he knew he wasn’t going to make it,” Ms. Giuliano said. “His hope was, ‘My death will not be for nothing.’ He didn’t say it that way, because that would take too much ego, and Scott didn’t have that kind of ego, but I think it would be really important to him to know that he didn’t die for nothing.”

Now, the story of what happened to Mr. Jerome-Parks would have to be told by his doctors and the hospital, neither of which were part of the settlement. The identities of those who settled were not revealed.

“He didn’t want to throw the hospital under the bus,” Ms. Leonard said, “but he wanted to move forward, to see if his treatment could help someone else.”

Dr. Caruana, the physician who had recommended surgery over radiation, added: “He said to let people know about it.”

Friends say the couple sought and received assurances that his story would be told.

Mr. Jerome-Parks’s parents were in Gulfport in February 2007, waiting for their house to be rebuilt after it was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, when they got the news that their son had died.

Afterward, they received a handwritten note from Dr. Berson, who said in part: “I never got to know any patient as well as I knew Scott, and I never bonded with any patient in the same way. Scott was a gentleman who handled his illness with utmost dignity, and with concern not only for himself but also for those around him.”

He ended by saying: “I commit to you, and as I promised Scott, everything we learned about the error that caused Scott’s injury will be shared across the country, so that nobody else is ever hurt in this way. On a personal level, I will never forget what Scott gave me.”

Dr. Berson no longer treats patients, said Dr. Josh Torgovnick, a neurologist who helped care for Mr. Jerome-Parks after the accident. “It drove him to retire,” he said, referring to the fatal overdose. The hospital disputes that, saying Dr. Berson still sees patients at the hospital.

Dr. Berson did not respond to several messages seeking an interview about the case. Citing privacy concerns, a spokesman for St. Vincent’s, Michael Fagan, said neither the hospital nor Dr. Berson would grant an interview.

In July, Mr. Jerome-Parks’s father stood across from the beach in Gulfport where his son’s friends had scooped up the sand they sent for his final Christmas.

“He taught us how to die,” Mr. Parks said. “He did it gracefully and thoughtfully and took care of everything. Most of us would lose it. He didn’t. He just did everything that he had to do, and then he let himself die.”

Mr. Parks said he had thought about starting a campaign to make medical mistakes public — but he never did. Nothing would ever come of it, he concluded.

 

  1. http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html

…. The increase in life expectancy between 1907 and 2007 was largely due to a decreasing infant mortality rate, which was 9.99 percent in 1907; 2.63 percent in 1957; and 0.68 percent in 2007.

But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans were not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with “life expectancy” — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact….

 Again, the high infant mortality rate skews the “life expectancy” dramatically downward. If a couple has two children and one of them dies in childbirth while the other lives to be 90, stating that on average the couple’s children lived to be 45 is statistically accurate but meaningless. Claiming a low average age of death due to high infant mortality is not the same as claiming that the average person in that population will die at that age….

When Socrates died at the age of 70 around 399 B.C., he did not die of old age but instead by execution. It is ironic that ancient Greeks lived into their 70s and older, while more than 2,000 years later modern Americans aren’t living much longer.

http://www.healthpromoting.com/learning-center/articles/life-expectancy  

The popular media often imply that increases in life expectancy are due to the wonders of modern medicine. This is false. Increases in life expectancy are due almost entirely to a decrease in the infant mortality rate….

Infant mortality in the US has decreased from more than 100 per 1,000 in 1920 to 10.9 today. During this same time, life expectancy has been said to have increased from 54 to 74 years.

At first glance it looks like people are living 20 years longer now than in the past. But this figure is misleading because it is just an average. It could mistakenly lead you to think that in 1920 most people lived to approximately 54 years of age and that now they live to approximately 74. This is not the case.

Consider these facts. In 1920 an adult 60 years old could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today an adult 60 years old can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80. That is only a four-year difference that appears in the life expectancy figures.

 

  1. Washington, D.C., 1916. “Convention of former slaves. Annie Parram, age 104; Anna Angales, age 105; Elizabeth Berkeley, 125; Sadie Thompson, 110.” National Photo Company Collection glass negative. http://blog.encyclopediavirginia.org/2012/02/11/convention-of-former-slaves/
  2. Dr. John Gofman was a Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley with an MD as well as a Ph.D. in nuclear-physical chemistry. He was the first Director of the Biomedical Research Division of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory from 1963-65 and one of nine Associate Directors at the Lab from 1963-1969. He was involved in the Manhattan Project and is a co-discoverer of Uranium-232, Plutonium-232, Uranium-233, and Plutonium-233, and of slow and fast neutron fissionability of Uranium-233. He also was a co-inventor of the uranyl acetate and columbium oxide processes for plutonium separation. He has taught in the radioisotope and radiobiology fields from the 1950s at least up into the 1980s, and has done research in radiochemistry, macromolecules, lipoproteins, coronary heart disease, arteriosclerosis, trace element determination, x-ray spectroscopy, chromosomes and cancer and radiation hazards. Starting in 1969 he began to challenge the AEC claim that there was a “safe threshold” of radiation below which no adverse health effects could be detected.
  3. http://www.getcancercure.com/switzerland-abolished-mammography-screenings-heres-why-you-should-probably-never-get-one/Switzerland Completely Abolished Mammography Screenings: Here’s Why You Should Probably Never Get One

By Get Cancer Cure – October 8, 2016  144716

In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative, was requested to prepare a review of mammography screening. The team of medical professionals included a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist. Two of those members, Nikola Biller-Andorno, M.D. Ph. D. and Peter Juni, M.D, opened up about the project in the New England Journal of Medicine.

 They said: “As we embarked on the project, we were aware of the controversies that have surrounded mammography screening for the past 10-15 years. When we received the available evidence and contemplated its implications in detail, however, we became increasingly concerned.”

In 2016, it is estimated that approximately 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women in the United States as well as 61,000 new cases of non-invasive breast cancer. Mammograms continue to be touted as the most effective screening tool we have today to find breast cancer.

However, these two doctors were shocked to discover that there is minimal evidence that actually indicates that the benefits of mammography screening outweigh the harms.

“The relative risk reduction of approximately 20 percent in breast-cancer mortality associated with mammography that is currently described by most expert panels came at the price of a considerable diagnostic cascade, with repeat mammography, subsequent biopsies, and over-diagnosis of breast cancers — cancers that would never have become clinically apparent.”

The Canadian National Breast Screening Study, which was conducted over the course of 25 years, concluded that 106 of 484 screen-detected cancers were over-diagnosed.

 The doctors explained: “This means that 106 of the 44,925 healthy women in the screening group were diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer unnecessarily, which resulted in needless surgical interventions, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination of these therapies.”

The fact that the benefits of this form of cancer screening are so overestimated seems worrisome for the medical community and patients at large. How, in this day and age, do we not have more awareness, more answers, and better technology?

Another review of 10 trials involving more than 600,000 women discovered no evidence that mammography screening was effective on overall mortality. This caused concern over the benefits of the medical practice. A survey of U.S. women’s views on the mammography screenings discovered that 71.5 percent of women think that it lessened risk of death from breast cancer by half, while 72.1 percent believed that 80 deaths could be avoided per each 1,000 women screened. Their perceptions were gravely over-calculated. In fact, when looking at the real numbers, mammography results in a risk reduction of 20 percent and only 1 death can be prevented per 1,000 women screened.

The Swiss Medical Board report became public in February 2014, provoking the board to advise that the quality of mammography screening ought to be evaluated and that women should be educated about both the benefits and the harms of the medical practice.

The report created controversy within the Swiss medical community, even though it supports a growing perspective around the world that mammography for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic populations is outdated and harmful at best.

When reviewing the data in regards to every breast cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year period of yearly screening starting at the age of 50, you will find that:

490-670 women usually have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination

70-100 women usually have an unnecessary biopsy

3-14 women were the victim of over-diagnosed breast cancer that would never reach clinical relevance

Furthermore, up to 50 percent of women have breast tissue that is dense. This makes it very hard to read mammograms correctly, as dense breast tissue and cancer both show up white on an X-ray.

Due to the lack of evidence in support of mammography and the clear potential risks involved with them, the board chose to recommend cancelling mammography-screening programs altogether. Although their recommendations are not legally binding, the report caused an uproar amongst Swiss cancer experts and organizations. The doctors on board reported:

“One of the main arguments used against it was that it contradicted the global consensus of leading experts in the field… Another argument was that the report unsettled women, but we wonder how to avoid unsettling women, given the available evidence.”

It’s clearly no mystery why the board became increasingly concerned about their researcher. The “evidence” simply does not back up the global consensus of other experiences in the field suggesting that mammograms were safe and capable of saving lives.

When it comes down to it, we are dealing with outdated clinical trials, the benefits do not clearly outweigh the harms, and women’s perceptions of mammography benefits do not match reality.

I believe that if you did have a tumor, the last thing you would want to do is crush that tumor between two plates, because that would spread it. – Dr. Sarah Mybill, General Practitioner (taken from the documentary trailer below)

I think if a woman from the age of 50 has a mammogram every year, or every two years, she’s going to get breast cancer as a direct result from that – Dr. Patrick Kingsley, Clinical Ecologist (take from the documentary trailer below)

In 2011, 220,097 women and 2,078 men in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 40,931 women and 443 men in the United States died from breast cancer. It has become the most common type of cancer among women.

Below is a trailer to a documentary entitled, “The Promise.”  The film interviews various researchers, scientists, doctors (and more), all of whom are hoping to shed light on a practice which is turning out to be not only useless, but harmful to those taking part. There is more information below the video, but I highly recommend you watch the documentary.

There is a wealth of scientific data concluding that mammograms are not, as the CDC claims, the most effective way to detect breast cancer. In fact, having a mammogram is likely the last thing you want to do if you have breast cancer.

A study published in The European Journal of Public Health titled “Trends in breast cancer stage distribution before, during and after introduction of a screening programme in Norway” found that breast screenings actually increase the incidence of localized stage cancers without reducing the incidence of advanced cancers.

The study, which used a huge population sample of 1.8 million Norwegian women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1987 – 2010, found that:

“The annual incidence of localized breast cancer among women aged 50–69 years rose from 63.9 per 100 000 before the introduction of screening to 141.2 afterwards, corresponding to a ratio of 2.21 (95% confidence interval: 2.10; 2.32).The incidence of more advanced cancers increased from 86.9 to 117.3 per 100 000 afterwards, corresponding to a 1.35 (1.29; 1.42)-fold increase. Advanced cancers also increased among younger women not eligible for screening, whereas their incidence of localized cancers remained nearly constant.”

This study outlines how Norway’s breast screening program has actually increased the chance of being diagnosed with early stage breast cancer by more than 200%, as well contributing to an increased chance of receiving advanced stage breast cancer diagnosis by 35%. This is the opposite of what mammograms are supposed to do; if they were useful then the incidence of cancers would be lower and not higher.

The study concluded that:

Incidence of localized breast cancer increased significantly among women aged 50–69 years old after introduction of screening, while the incidence of more advanced cancers was not reduced in the same period when compared to the younger unscreened age group.

It’s important to note that, “although the study did measure the impact of Norway’s breast screening programme, a comparison of trends between participants and non-participants in the age group eligible for screening warrants further investigation. Also the causal link between stage distribution and mortality needs to be investigated in the context of screening.”

A paper published in 2011 in the British Medical Journal set out to prove that breast screening by mammography is associated with a steeper fall in mortality cancer compared to other countries who were not offering this service. They did not expect to find the complete opposite; they found a drop in breast cancer mortality among women who were not screened. They concluded that the recent downward trend in breast cancer mortality had nothing to do with screening and everything to do with improvements in treatment and service provision. (source)

The new data published in the BMJ now suggests that none of the gratifying falls in breast cancer can be attributed to screening and that the very existence of a NHSBSP (national breast screening programme) should be questioned. Unless there is public pressure for an independent inquiry to challenge the status quo, it will be business as usual for the screening programme. Furthermore, the Department of Health has painted itself into a corner and it is no longer a question of scientific debate – the subject has become too politicized by those who like to avoid U-turns at all costs. –  Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer treatment (source)

This would be an asymptomatic woman walking along the high street, having a mammogram, and then two weeks later she’s told she has to have a mastectomy. This is so cruel that it should make you weep. (quote taken from the documentary trailer above)

As Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com points out, a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert panel concluded that “early stage cancers” are not cancer, they are benign or indolent growths. This means that millions of women were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer over the past few decades and have been subjected to harmful treatment, when they would have been better off leaving it untreated or diagnosed; frighteningly, it is not uncommon for a breast cancer misdiagnosis to occur.

Another study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal concluded that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates. And they found no evidence to suggest that mammograms are more effective than personal breast exams at detecting cancer in the designated age group. The study involved 90, 000 Canadian women and compared breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59.

The study was conducted over a period of 25 years. The sheer number of studies that have been published on breast mammography examinations and their failure to produce a benefit in screened populations is overwhelming. What’s even more disturbing is the fact that these types of examinations have also been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, and to have negative implications for both physical and mental health.

U-turns do not embarrass clinical scientists, unlike politicians: if the evidence changes then our minds must change. As the national programme began to run its course, two disturbing observations made me begin to question my original support. First, about 10 years after the initiation of the service, updated analyses of the original data set by independent groups in Europe and the US found that the initial estimate of benefit in the reduction of breast cancer mortality was grossly exaggerated. –  Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer treatment.

Other sources used not listed in the article.
(1) http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/25/eurpub.cku015.abstract?sid=3c63c31b-f978-4742-8c11-1a1caf5f9bce

(2) http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4411 (3) http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/breastscreening.pdf

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fail-another-mammography-study-finds-they-dont-save-lives

Article Source: Collective Evolution

  1. http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/

https://bcaction.org/2014/09/30/think-before-you-pink-stop-the-distraction/

Think Before You Pink: Stop the Distraction

By Karuna Jaggar

It’s Breast Cancer Industry Month and the pink floodgates have opened. And again we ask: what have all these pink ribbon products and promotions done for women living with and at risk of breast cancer?

Together, over the years, we’ve changed the landscape of pink ribbon marketing. Pinkwashing is now a household word. People understand that you always have to “follow the money” in pink ribbon marketing. We’ve exposed the hypocrisy in pink ribbon fundraising and achieved some momentous wins against corporations.

This October, we’re taking it further and targeting some of the most outrageous pink ribbon promotions that exemplify everything that’s wrong with pink ribbon culture. We’re calling out the empty awareness, the misinformation, the profiteering, the pinkwashing, the degrading of women, the “tyranny of cheerfulness” that hides the harsh realities of this disease.

We’re sick of marketing giants raking in billions of pink ribbon dollars while women continue to be diagnosed with and die from this disease.

Pink ribbon culture distracts from meaningful progress on breast cancer in six fundamental ways:

2014-10-01-showyoucarebeawarebag.jpg

1) Pink ribbon products spread empty awareness. “Awareness” has failed to address and end the breast cancer epidemic. Who isn’t aware of breast cancer these days? Pink ribbon trinkets on store shelves that promote “awareness” ultimately change nothing. We have more than enough awareness, but not nearly enough action that will make a significant difference to whether women get breast cancer or survive it. By making the public think “awareness” is the end goal, pink ribbon culture defuses anger about breast cancer and its devastating impact, and distracts us from the meaningful actions that will achieve health justice for us all. Oriental Trading, for example, is spreading empty awareness via its endless supply of plastic pink ribbon trinkets — the company pockets all the money from these sales!

Instead of more meaningless gestures that defuse righteous anger and distract us from the real issues, we need bold action to address and end the epidemic.

2014-10-01-NFLcrucialcatch.jpg

2) Pink ribbon promotions spread misinformation. Whether by over-inflating women’s risk of developing breast cancer, spreading the myth that “early detection is your best protection,” focusing on a five-year cure rate for a disease that remains a risk throughout a woman’s life, or other ways of cheerfully fudging the statistics, many pink ribbon promotions fail to tell the whole truth. These inaccuracies allow pink ribbon marketers to manipulate consumers’ emotions through fear-mongering and false promises—in order to sell more products. The NFL, for example, is spreading misinformation about breast cancer by repeating disproven and misleading advice about mammography screening in their “Crucial Catch” campaign.

Breast cancer campaigns must offer evidence-based information that does not fuel fear or offer empty promises in the attempt to sell pink products.

2014-10-01-kohls.jpg

3) Corporations exploit concern about breast cancer for profit. Each October, marketers take advantage of people’s sincere concern about breast cancer to make money and generate good publicity. Companies sell products, make profits, and seek customer goodwill by claiming to care about breast cancer. Yet, most of these promotions ultimately benefit corporations far more than they help women living with and at risk of breast cancer. By tapping into our generosity and genuine desire to help, these companies avoid transparency about where the pink ribbon money goes and too often leave consumers unable to accurately evaluate the promises made in product advertising. Kohls’ recent “Pink Elephant in the Room” promotion, for example, was outrageous profiteering; it exploited concern for women affected by breast cancer to make millions for the company.

Companies and charities must honor people’s good intentions with full transparency and accountability in their breast cancer fundraising and marketing.

2014-10-01-Pinkwaterbottles.png

4) Some pink ribbon products are linked to causing breast cancer. Years ago, Breast Cancer Action came up with a term for this, pinkwashing: the outrageous corporate practice of selling products linked to an increased risk of breast cancer while claiming to care about (and profiting from) breast cancer. It is outrageous and deeply hypocritical for companies to make money and gain customer goodwill from products that increase the risk of the very disease they claim to care about! Alhambra Water, for example, is pinkwashing by selling plastic polycarbonate water bottles which contain BPA, a hormone-disrupting chemical linked to breast cancer.

Companies that claim to care about breast cancer should make sure their own products and services don’t increase women’s risk of breast cancer.

2014-10-01-BlackNascar.jpg

5) Pink ribbon promotions often degrade women by objectifying and sexualizing women’s breasts and bodies. From “save the boobies” to “save the ta-tas” to “save second base,” campaigns like these demean and insult women—and distract from the true focus of saving women’s lives. They highlight narrow standards of beauty (thin, white, able-bodied, and young), depict women as coy sex-objects and too often promote the fantasy of “perfect” breasts. These sexy/cute campaigns hide the lived experiences of women in all their diversity and complexity. NASCAR, for example, is selling breast cancer awareness t-shirts that say “Check Your Headlights” which degrade women by objectifying and sexualizing women’s breasts and bodies.

We must honor women’s rich complexity and full diversity, rather than obsess over narrowly defined body parts as the focus of breast cancer campaigns.

Pink ribbon culture obscures the harsh reality of breast cancer

2014-10-01-Hooters.jpg

6) Pink ribbon culture obscures the harsh reality of breast cancer by creating a single story of triumphant survivorship based on positive thinking, beauty tips, and sanitized, carefully chosen images of women living with the disease- and sometimes women who do not even have breast cancer. Breast cancer is not pretty and pink, and many women who “fight hard,” “fight like a girl,” and try to “beat breast cancer” develop metastatic cancer and still die from the disease. Breast cancer is only profitable when it’s palatable, and the pink ribbon covers up the devastating, harsh reality that so many women and their loved ones are dealing with. Hooters’ breast cancer campaigns, for example, obscure the harsh reality of breast cancer by promoting a story of triumphant survivorship based on positive thinking, beauty tips, and sanitized, carefully chosen images of women.

We must value all women living with and at risk of breast cancer and recognize the hard realities of breast cancer, including and especially metastatic disease.

If these marketing giants really care about addressing breast cancer, they’ll Stop the Distraction! They’ll take bold action, provide evidence-based information, be accountable and transparent in their fundraising, stop degrading women, value women’s diversity, and stop hiding the harsh realities of this disease.

Take a stand against the industry that is taking advantage of our goodwill, profiteering off this disease, and distracting the movement from meaningful progress on breast cancer.

Whether you are joining us for the first time or are a long-time Breast Cancer Action activist, thank you for taking action with us and demanding real progress on breast cancer.

P.S. After you let these pink offenders know what you think about breast cancer campaigns, join us on Facebook and Twitter and share our “Stop the Distraction” graphics with your friends and family and let the world know why many pink ribbon promotions do more harm than good.

Karuna Jaggar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ka

7.           http://www.naturalnews.com/048682_cancer_industry_chemotherapy_iatrogenic_deaths.html   

If you cripple your immunity, what have you got? If you wipe out all of your good bacteria in your gut, what’s left? Did you know that if you survive with chemotherapy and cancer for five years you are statistically entered in the “cancer books” as a survivor, even if you drop dead the next day due to chemo-overload, organ strangulation or total lack of immunity? The chemotherapy and radiation treatments are leading to death stemming from the simple common cold or the flu. That’s right, then pneumonia takes over, because you have no more white blood cells to fight off infections. Who knew?

Of course, we can’t count up all the chemo deaths, because the hospitals and oncologists will always simply say that “the cancer spread” and that was the cause of termination. That’s what goes “on the books.”

If you’re taking chemo treatments and you have no immunity, because chemotherapy demolishes it (even medical doctors admit this), any common infection can become your demise. The next flu could be the end of you. For example, a staph infection from handling raw chicken could be the culprit of the beginning of the end for a cancer survivor who continues taking chemo. The next infection from GM E. coli or Salmonella and you’re done for. Simple food poisoning from fast food and you’re six feet under. Where are those statistics? They’re nowhere — because you “can’t prove it.”

Being shot up with antibiotics and viruses by a medical doctor and nurses who agree that you need mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde to “create immunity” or beat back bacteria/viruses — that could be the straw the breaks the camel’s back (meaning you).

Catching a superbug at the hospital, meaning a virus and/or bacterium that’s immune to antibiotics, is quite common nowadays, so that bed with blue sheets they’ve made for you in the “recovery room” is really the lion’s den of infectious pathogens that enter your system and NEVER leave again. Again, no statistics.

How can someone die from chemotherapy overdose?

It’s simple. First of all, many people who are fighting cancer don’t really have cancer. Doctors, X-ray technicians and oncologists misread (purposely or on accident) lab results, and people go under the knife, get chemo and radiation for NO reason but to pad the pockets of the billion-dollar cancer machine. Second of all, many people who are fighting cancer ARE WEAK, and the last thing they need is to kill their good bacteria and poison their pineal gland in their brain. Then, at the hospital, they are fed 100% GMO toxic food, toxic beverages, toxic sugar water (via the IV), and toxic gluten, MSG and aspartame at the hospital cafeteria. Cancer victims are being “processed,” and they don’t even know that chemotherapy was first thought up by Nazis.

People die from chemotherapy overdose because they are already weak and consume all the wrong foods. Cancer can be reversed. Organic sulfur, hemp seed oil, chaga mushrooms, reishi mushrooms, baking soda, 35% food-grade hydrogen peroxide, Cannabis sativa, organic raw coconut oil, aloe and actual fluoride-free spring water could all be your ticket to a cancer-free world, but who’s saying what? Are the medical doctors telling you this? Heck no. They can’t. They would lose their license and make no money.

You can overdose from chemotherapy, but the results of the tests won’t show it. Every cell in your body will be SCREAMING IT, but the crooked, Western Medicine regime that controls the cancer industry will never allow it to hit the “peer-reviewed” medical journals, that are all as biased as the day they were “born.” Yes, we’ve all read JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and we’ve seen the ads in the back for cigarettes and pharmaceutical manufacturers that pay top dollar for that AMA “seal of approval.”

And now it’s time for the scary statistics of cancer

Cancer is America’s leading cause of death for people under the age of 85. Think about that for a second. Approximately 40% of men and women will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetime. There are an estimated 13,000,000 people living with cancer right now in the U.S. Approximately 66% of people survive after five years of being diagnosed with cancer. These are estimated new U.S. cancer cases for 2015 — based off similar 2014 statistics. (http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html)

Lung and Bronchus Cancer: 225,000; Resulting Deaths: 160,000

Colon and Rectum Cancer: 136,000; Resulting Deaths: 50,000

Breast Cancer: 230,000; Resulting Deaths: 40,000

Prostate Cancer: 230,000; Resulting Deaths: 30,000

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: 70,000; Resulting Deaths: 19,000

All types of cancer this year: 1,665,000; Resulting Deaths: 585,000

Last thing to consider: Seventy-five percent of all physicians in the world refuse chemotherapy for themselves

 

  1. Radioactive implants are devices that are placed directly within cancerous tissue or tumors, in order to deliver radiation therapy intended to kill cancerous cells. The practice of internal radiation therapy also is referred to as brachytherapy.

Part of what is horrifying are the contradictions, and how different the information from the US versus Britain is, and even different US clinics, where some downplay the danger of radiation exposure to people being near those who have radioactive implants.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/01/can-your-cancer-treatment-be-hazardous-to-others/

“…there may be no problem with sitting next to the person who is driving you home from the treatment appointment during which radioactive seeds were implanted to treat prostate cancer. But you would not hold a child, puppy or kitten under a year old on your lap, or hug a pregnant woman for at least two months after the seeds have been implanted.”

Versus….

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-in-general/treatment/radiotherapy/internal/safety

While having treatment

You might be in a special side room, away from the main ward for 1 or 2 days….The doctors and nurses looking after you only stay in your room for short periods at a time. Staff wear badges that monitor their exposure to radiation and make sure they keep to a safe level.

Staff and visitors need to stay a little way away from your bed – the further away they are, the less exposure they have to the radiation.

The nurses might use an instrument called a scintillation counter to monitor radiation levels in anything taken out of the room, such as bed linen.

You can only have a limited number of visitors.

Visitors are asked to stay a short time and may need to sit some distance away from you or talk to you from the doorway.

Children under 16 and pregnant women are not allowed to visit.

You can take books, magazines, and some electronic devices into the room.

If you had a radioactive drink, your urine might be slightly radioactive for a few days – you may need to use the toilet sitting down and wear gloves when you wipe yourself.

After your treatment

You might be given a card to keep with you for a certain period of time in case of medical emergency.

If a medical emergency occurs, let your doctor know that you have had internal radiotherapy treatment.

For a few days after a radioactive drink you might need to flush the toilet twice, each time you use it.

If you had internal radiotherapy seeds for prostate cancer and one comes out when you empty your bladder, don’t touch it. Use tongs to pick it up and flush it down the toilet. Tell your doctor.

You might need to wear a condom during sex for a few months after internal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. This is in case a seed comes out during sex but this very rarely happens.

Permanent radioactive implant

You might give off a low level of radioactivity for a few days after having radioactive seeds put in. Your doctor or nurse will tell you about this. They advise you on how to restrict your activity, until the radiation can’t be detected outside the body.

You might need to:

stay in hospital for a few days

avoid close contact with pregnant women or children

avoid public transport

For treatment using radioactive liquids

You can’t take many personal items into the treatment room. This is because the items could become contaminated with radioactivity from your sweat.

Wards, nuclear medicine departments and radiotherapy departments have limited storage space for contaminated articles. So, the staff will ask you not to take many items that they would need to store until the radioactivity has fallen to a safe level.

https://www.mskcc.org/blog/answers-common-questions-about-radiation-safety

Is there any risk that internal radiation implants (brachytherapy) will leak or break free from where they are placed and move around my body?

With brachytherapy, we use a needle or a catheter to insert radioactive material contained within an impenetrable sealed source such as a seed, pellet, wire, or capsule. As the radioactive isotopes inside the implant decay naturally over time, they emit radiation and damage nearby cancer cells. This radioactivity travels only a certain distance beyond the implant, and eventually deteriorates to the point that the implant no longer gives off any radiation. The implants are specially tested and sealed to ensure that radioactive material doesn’t leak, and we place them in such a way that it’s highly unlikely they will move. Also, in the case of brachytherapy for genitourinary cancers, while there is no risk that the implants will come out with semen, we do give patients a strainer to use for 24 to 48 hours after the procedure when urinating, in the rare case that a seed becomes dislodged.

Do prostate seed implants put my sexual partner or the person I sleep next to at risk in any way?

Prostate seeds are sealed sources. You cannot contaminate another person by being in his or her physical vicinity, during sexual intercourse, or through any other form of intimate contact. Your doctor or a member of the radiation safety staff will discuss any special precautions you should take with sleep arrangements before you leave the hospital. For example, based on such factors as your age and the age of your partner, for a period of time we may ask that you avoid embracing your partner from the back in the “spooning“ position through the night.

Compare these quotes with the information from Britain, above: “You might need to wear a condom during sex for a few months after internal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. This is in case a seed comes out during sex but this very rarely happens.”

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/prostate-cancer/expert-answers/prostate-cancer-brachytherapy/FAQ-20058023

The Mayo clinics’ recommendations for the first two months after seed implantation might include:

Avoiding sexual intercourse for the first two weeks.

After the first two weeks, using a condom during sexual intercourse in case a seed is passed during ejaculation

Limiting close contact with children and pregnant women

Not allowing children to sit on your lap for extended periods…

 

  1. http://store.auntlute.com/Shadow-on-a-Tightrope-p219.html

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/medical-fat-shaming-danger/

From my dear friend, Megan Brown:

As a fat person, I can say that doctors immediately blame EVERYTHING on weight.

I had one doctor who wouldn’t even touch me. I went to another that told me to lose 15 pounds and then he would treat me for what I was seeking help for. I lost the weight, and he still didn’t help me.

Being overweight DOES affect your health, but even more so, it effects the way that I am treated by medical professionals.

So if you are thin, you are lucky, because you are not blamed for being ill. But God forbid you be a fatty, because we all know that it is your fat ass that is making you have lung cancer, or migraines, or gigantic tumors in your uterus.

Fat shaming is so bad, that even my own brother blamed me for being sick, and he refused to talk to me. Because of the way that I looked. Awesome.

So the thing is this. You can be fat and be sick. Just like you can be fat and also not get sick. In the same manner, you can be thin and get sick. You can be thin and not get sick as well. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

 

  1. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/25/the-deadly-secrets-of-plum-island/

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/08/30/lab-257/

https://bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/chapter-nine-hidden-disability-by-bev-jo-and-linda-strega-2/

Lyme disease is most often spread by ticks, but can also be transmitted by fleas, mosquitoes, mites, and sexually, between humans (though transmission by males to female or males to males is much higher, just as it is for STDs, including HIV. Lyme disease can also be spread in other ways, such as from mothers to fetuses. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) believe that Borrelia burgdorferi can even survive the blood purification processes that donated blood is subjected to, and therefore can be spread by transfusion. There is no test for the related spirochete, Borrelia Miyamotoi, discovered in 2013, means the blood supply is even less safe than people realize.

Under Our Skin: The Acclaimed Documentary about the Untold Story of Lyme Disease. www.underourskin.com/

A great imitator, like its cousin Syphilis, Lyme is found in the brains of many people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS, MS, Fibromyalgia, Arthritis, Lupus, etc., who may actually not have those diseases.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kris-kristofferson-misdiagnosed-alzheimers-has-lyme-disease/

http://www.jneuroinflammation.com/content/8/1/90

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565243/

In Lyme disease concurrent infections frequently occur. The clinical and pathological impact of co-infections was first recognized in the 1990’s, i.e. approximately ten years after the discovery of Lyme disease. Their pathological synergism can exacerbate Lyme disease or induce similar disease manifestations. Co-infecting agents can be transmitted together with Borrelia burgdorferi by tick bite resulting in multiple infections but a fraction of co-infections occur independently of tick bite. Clinically relevant co-infections are caused by Bartonella species, Yersinia enterocolitica, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. In contrast to the USA, human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA) and babesiosis are not of major importance in Europe. Infections caused by these pathogens in patients not infected by Borrelia burgdorferi can result in clinical symptoms similar to those occurring in Lyme disease. This applies particularly to infections caused by Bartonella henselae, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae.

Chlamydia trachomatis primarily causes polyarthritis. Chlamydophila pneumoniae not only causes arthritis but also affects the nervous system and the heart, which renders the differential diagnosis difficult. The diagnosis is even more complex when co-infections occur in association with Lyme disease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqKaM_J7KDI

NonSpiral Borrelia — Part 1 — Explanation of Shape shifting and Form Metamorphosis of Spirochetes    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ojq_2-HlNg

Part II — Cystic Borrelia and Related Topics Including Round Body Infections of the Brain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrLJLgoNgA4

Why the government won’t allow treatment for Chronic Lyme disease

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYMezkigMWk

Lyme is difficult to diagnose because the US government commission had a conflict of interest and eliminated half the main diagnostic markers, so most people who have Lyme show up negative on the tests. This saves insurance companies a lot of money. And of course if the government accepted responsibility for inventing this illness, there would be millions of lawsuits.

From 36 known Borrelia species, 12 cause Lyme disease or other borreliosis, which is transmitted by the bite of infected ticks…. When neutral techniques recognizing all types of spirochetes were used, or the highly prevalent periodontal pathogen Treponemas were analyzed, spirochetes were observed in the brain in more than 90% of Alzheimer’s Disease cases. Borrelia burgdorferi was detected in the brain in 25.3% of AD cases analyzed and was 13 times more frequent in AD compared to controls.

http://lymeblog.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1668
http://blog.lef.org/2013/12/is-alzheimers-caused-by-infection.html

http://blog.lifeextension.com/2013/12/is-alzheimers-caused-by-infection.html

Carroll’s “Lab 257” also documents a Nazi connection to the original establishment of a US laboratory on Plum Island. According to the book, Erich Traub, a scientist who worked for the Third Reich doing biological warfare, was the force behind its founding.

During World War II, “as lab chief of Insel Riems­a secret Nazi biological warfare laboratory on a crescent-shaped island in the Baltic Sea,Traub worked for Adolf Hitler’s second-in-charge, SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler, on live germ trials,” states “Lab 257. The mission was to develop biological warfare to be directed against animals in the Soviet Union. This included infecting cattle and reindeer with foot-and-mouth disease.

“Ironically, Traub spent the prewar period of his scientific career on a fellowship at the Rockefeller Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, perfecting his skills in viruses and bacteria under the tutelage of American experts before returning to Nazi Germany on the eve of war,” says “Lab 257.”  While in the US in the 1930s, too, relates the book, Traub was a member of the Amerika-Deutscher Volksbund which was involved in pro-Nazi rallies held weekly in Yaphank on Long Island.

With the end of the war, Traub came back to the United States with Project Paperclip, a US program under which Nazi scientists, such as Wernher von Braun, were brought to the US.

“Traub’s detailed explanation of the secret operation on Insel Riems” given to officials at Fort Detrick in Maryland, the Army’s biological warfare headquarters, and to the CIA, “laid the groundwater for Fort Detrick’s offshore germ warfare animal disease lab on Plum Island,” says “Lab 257.” “Traub was a founding father….”

The Long Island daily newspaper Newsday earlier documented this biological warfare mission of Plum Island. In a lead story on November 21, 1993, Newsday investigative reporter John McDonald wrote: “A 1950s military plan to cripple the Soviet economy by killing horses, cattle and swine called for making biological warfare weapons out of exotic animal diseases at a Plum Island laboratory, now-declassified Army records reveal.” A facsimile of one of the records, dated 1951, covered the front page of that issue of Newsday.

The article went on: “Documents and interviews disclose for the first time what officials have denied for years: that the mysterious and closely guarded animal lab off the East End of Long Island was originally designed to conduct top-secret research into replicating dangerous viruses that could be used to destroy enemy livestock.”

The book also tells of why suddenly the Army transferred Plum Island to the Department of Agriculture in 1954­the US military became concerned about having to feed millions of people in the Soviet Union if it destroyed their food animals.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff “found that a war with the USSR would best be fought with conventional and nuclear means, and biological warfare against humans­ not against food animals,” says “Lab 257.” “Destroying the food supply meant having to feed millions of starving Russians after winning a war.”

Still, “Lab 257” questions whether there ever was a clean break. Officials at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center have, however, insisted over the years that the center’s function is to conduct research into foreign animal diseases not found in the US ­especially foot-and-mouth disease­ and the only biological warfare research done is of a “defensive” kind.

“Lab 257” also maintains that there is a link between the Plum Island center and the emergence of Lyme disease. It “suddenly surfaced” 10 miles from Plum Island “in Old Lyme, Connecticut in 1975.” Carroll cites years of experimentation with ticks on Plum Island and the possibility of an accidental or purposeful release.

“The tick is the perfect germ vector,” says “Lab 257,” “which is why it has long been fancied as a germ weapon by early bio-warriors from Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan to the Soviet Union and the United States.”

“A source who worked on Plum Island in the 1950s,” the book states, “recalls that animal handlers and a scientist released ticks outdoors on the island. ‘They called him the Nazi scientist, when they came in, in 1951 ­they were inoculating these ticks.”

“Lab 257” goes on: “Dr. Traub’s World War II handiwork consisted of aerial virus sprays developed on Insel Riems and tested over occupied Russia, and of field work for Heinrich Himmler in Turkey. Indeed, his colleagues conducted insect trials by dropping live beetles from planes. An outdoor tick trial would have been de riguer for Erich Traub.”

Monday, April 26, 2010

US Government Admits Lyme Disease Is A Bio-weapon

The existence of the Lyme disease epidemic is officially covered up in the UK, its myriad presentations routinely misdiagnosed as everything from “M.E.” to MS to hypochondria. This is the first admission by a US government body that the cause is an incapacitating bio-war agent:

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — The $10.6 million Margaret Batts Tobin Laboratory Building will provide a 22,000-square-foot facility to study such diseases as anthrax, tularemia, cholera, lyme disease, desert valley fever and other parasitic and fungal diseases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified these diseases as potential bioterrorism agents.

So, for the first time, a US government body admits that Lyme disease is a biological warfare agent. This is the reason that hundreds of thousands of men, women and children around the world have been left to rot with wrong diagnoses, or have had their Lyme disease acknowledged but been told that it is an “easily-treated” disease, given 3 weeks’ antibiotics, then told to shove off when their symptoms carried on after that.

In Britain the existence of the epidemic is denied completely, and virtually no effort made to warn or educate the public about the dangers of ticks, which carry the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi.

The reality is, Lyme disease is for many a chronic, horrendous, incapacitating disease producing crippling fatigue, constant pain, loss of memory, possible paralysis, psychosis, blindness and even death.

It was an ideal bio-war agent because it evades detection on routine tests, has an enormous range of different presentations, and can mimic everything from ADHD to multiple sclerosis to carpal tunnel syndrome to rheumatoid arthritis to chronic fatigue syndrome (M.E.) to lupus to schizophrenia. Enemy medical staff would never know what had hit them, nor even that ONE illness had hit their population, rather than an unexplained rise in dozens of known conditions.

Honest doctors and scientists who tried to treat or research Lyme disease according to ethical principles have been viciously persecuted by government-backed organizations in the US, Europe and elsewhere. Many specialists in the US were threatened with loss of their license or had anonymous, false allegations sent to the medical board, which tied them up in mountains of paperwork and legal fees…some were forced out of medicine or even driven to suicide.

Instead, medical dis-info agents, most of whom have a background in military/biowarfare units, such as Dr. Allen Steere, Mark Klempner, Philip Baker, Edward McSweegan, David Dennis, Alan Barbour, etc. were enabled to assume top positions in Lyme research, CDC, NIH, etc. from where they issued false information, covering up the true seriousness and chronic nature of the disease, and condemned untold numbers to a living hell.

Please help Lyme patients publicize this scandal, which has caused suffering on a massive scale.

http://crazzfiles.com/lyme-disease-a-biological-weapon/

First let’s begin with a discussion of what properties constitute an effective biological warfare agent. The Media, The Centers For Disease Control and The Department of Defense would have us believe that the most threatening biological agents are lethal microbes which cause acute disease and then death…such as anthrax and smallpox. It appears that we are being intentionally misled as to where the real danger lies.

Government biological warfare documents speak of incapacitating agents as being the most effective at disabling a nation. When a population is infected with a lethal agent, it is very obvious that measures need to be taken such as quarantine, antibiotics, etc. This helps to curb and abort the epidemic.

 A much more discreet, diabolical and effective method of disabling a country would be to employ a moderately infectious organism or combination (Russian Doll Cocktails) which would pass slowly through the population unnoticed. Some of the criteria for effective disabling agents are:

  1. A biological agent which lacks objective signs that can be determined by medical testing. Many patients who are extremely ill with mycoplasma or lyme infections are told all their tests are normal therefore their problems must be all in their heads. Many people labeled with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia are told the same thing….if they would only get a new job, hobby or begin to exercise…then they would be fine.
  2. An agent which would produce so many symptoms throughout the body that it would appear that the patient was malingering or faking. This criteria prevents the medical community from taking the disease seriously and in the meantime it passes quietly through the population being labeled as many separate diseases and conditions.
  3. If the disabling agent is a combination of several diseases, some of which could be genetically engineered, then it becomes very difficult if not impossible to diagnose and treat.
  4. Diseases which are spread by insect vectors are very much sought after. This makes an epidemic much easier to pass off as a natural event while concealing the identity of the perpetrators.

Dr. Donald MacArthur who was in charge of the development and testing of biological weapons for the Pentagon had this to say at a Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations in 1969.

“Incapacitating agents are a more recent development and are largely in the R&D phase (in 1969). In fact the prime emphasis in agent R&D is on developing better incapacitating agents. We are synthesizing new compounds and testing them in animals. I should mention that there is a rule of thumb we use before an agent can be classified as an incapacitate, we feel that the mortality should be very low. Therefore the ratio of the lethal dose to the incapacitating dose has to be very high. Now this is a technical job. We have some of the top scientists in the country working for years on how to get more effective incapacitating agents. It is not easy.” He also tells us that an incapacitating agent “imposes a greater logistic burden on the enemy when he has to look after the disabled people.”

 When a large portion of the population is sick and unable to work, this puts an enormous strain on the economy. I predict that if we do not make this issue an immediate priority, our country will indeed become quickly disabled.

 The next logical question would be…does Lyme Disease and it’s coinfections fit into this scenario? Certain doctors and researchers feel that lyme disease and it’s coinfections….such as Mycoplasma fermentens (patented by the U,S. Army) are actually micro-organisms with excellent credentials for qualifying as disabling bio-warfare agents..

 Much controversy surrounds the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme Disease and mycoplasma induced illnesses such as Gulf War Illness. Professor Garth Nicolson and Lieutenant Joyce Riley….among others…are seeing evidence everywhere that one cause of Gulf War Illness is microbial and that it is spreading to the families of the veterans and then on to the public in general. Many who become ill with this mycoplasma and or the Lyme spirochete are being divided up into separate disease labels such as Multiple Sclerosis, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Alzheimer’s, Bi Polar Depression, Lupus,, ALS, etc. Most of these disease labels have no known definitive tests, causes or cures…only symptomatic treatments.}}

The Lyme Spirochete (borrelia burgdorferi..Bb ) and mycoplasma fermentens are both extremely pathogenic and can cause problems in every body system. In fact they present with symptoms so similar to each other that one has to wonder what the connection is. Sufferers of Lyme Disease are very often co-infected with mycoplasmas, babesia, erlichiosis, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and certain viruses.

We are told that Lyme Disease has been around for hundreds of years and that ticks are filthy organisms which can spread many diseases in one single bite. This appears to be true but is this due to a natural evolutionary process or is this sudden proliferation of countless coinfections a process which has had some help from bio-warfare researchers? Are all these ticks carrying multi-pathogens naturally this way or are they the result of The Russian Doll Cocktail concept? Have ticks themselves been modified to endure harsh weather extremes?

The ticks that carry Lyme disease appear to be surviving in climates previously inhospitable to this species. In fact this disease is becoming endemic in many parts of the world at once and seems to be just as controversial everywhere it spreads. Why is this? If Lyme disease is an unaltered ancient organism then shouldn’t the medical community be aware of it’s very diverse symptom complex? Shouldn’t they know that it is a Great Imitator such as its close relative, Syphilis? Global warming always seems to be one of the excuses used when insect vectors cross their climate boundaries…but maybe it’s due to genetic engineering. For example…Aedes Japonicus is a genetically altered strain of mosquito and is purported to be the most efficient vector for West Nile Virus. It just happened to appear over here….out of its native habitat…just in time to be an efficient vector for the West Nile Virus outbreak.

Borrelia burgdorferi…Bb…the causative agent of Lyme Disease presents with persistent infection and is many times incurable with the standard antibiotic regimes. While usually antibiotics are necessary in controlling and improving the Lyme infection, it appears the organism may never be totally eradicated. It is known that there are techniques used to enhance bacterial resistance to antibiotics. So….while on the one hand the medical authorities are warning us of the dangers of the overuse of antibiotics and even limiting their valid applications…on the other hand they are creating and perhaps even letting loose antibiotic resistant germs.

 In 1984 Secretary of State Casper Weinberger reported “Normally harmless, non-disease producing organisms could be modified to become highly toxic or produce disease which an opponent has no known treatment or cure.” (Soviet Military Power, 1984, p. 73.

 Patients are being denied antibiotics for chronic persistent Lyme. Doctors who are treating these chronic patients are being investigated and many have already had their licenses removed. Many are told they are malingering…that they either have antibiotic seeking behavior, depression or autoimmune disease.

One could say that Bb is most definitely an excellent candidate as a biological warfare agent. Bb has been shown to pass from mother to fetus. Many feel that it can be sexually transmitted. Why are no studies being done in this area? It has been found in semen, tears, breast milk and other insects in addition to ticks. With Lyme disease there is no immunity. One can be infected and re-infected. The disease is responsible for neuropsychiatric problems, marriages are often disrupted and patients are losing their jobs and their homes. Many of our nation’s children are being labeled with learning disabilities when the cause is often Lyme disease. I am also wondering if vaccines are contaminated with Bb and or mycoplasmas? Is there any way vaccine batches can be independently studied? Well, there should be, don’t you think?

 I received an abstract the other day put out by Brookhaven National Labs. I am including it below and will let readers come to their own conclusions. It sounds to me as if it is felt that Bb, erlichsia and babesia are biological warfare candidates.

Grant Number:1U01AI056480-01

 PI Name: DUNN, JOHN J.

 PI Email: <mailto:jdunn@bnl.gov>jdunn@bnl.gov

 PI Title: SENIOR SCIENTIST

 Project Title:

Rapid Detection and Identification of Zoonotic Pathogens

 Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Zoonotic pathogens including those transmitted by insect vectors are some of the most deadly of all infectious diseases known to mankind. In the past, wars and natural disasters were the main catalysts that promoted epidemics of these ancient afflictions, which are normally transmitted by fleas, lice and ticks.

 Many of these diseases remain endemic in various regions of the world and therefore pose serious threats to U.S. armed forces troops and civilians who might enter endemic disease zones. A number of these agents have been further weaponized and are widely recognized as being the most significant bio-threat agents.

 Study of disease agents and development of rapid means for their detection take on added importance in light of the use of anthrax for a bioterror attack on the U.S.A. The aim of this proposal is to modify a novel DNA-based methodology we have developed for profiling genomic DNAs to permit rapid, cultivation-free differential detection and identification of bio-threat infectious agents in their natural environments, including intermediate infected hosts, and clinical specimens from humans or infected animals.

 We plan to use Borrelia burgdorferi, the arthropod-borne etiologic agent of Lyme disease and Yersinia pestis, the etiologic agent of plague, as our principle test agents to work through the systems. We will begin with B. burgdorferi since although it has a complicated life-cycle involving both arthropod and animal intermediates, it is easy to grow and we have extensive experience in working with it in different complex environments including ticks, rodents and human samples.

 Thus it gives us the opportunity of detecting this pathogen in a variety of complex environments. We also have significant experience with characterizing and identifying subtle changes in the genome of Y. pestis utilizing genomic signature tags. We will use these methods as the foundation of new, high-throughput sequence-based systems to detect zoonotic and/or vector-borne biothreat agents such as Yersinia pestis, Francisella tularensis, Rickettsia ricketsii and other human pathogens such as Ehrlichia and Babesia species.

 This technology can ultimately be adapted as a sensitive method to detect specific DNA signature sequences from both known and unknown pathogens in a wide variety of complex environments and since it is PCR-based it has the advantage that only minimal quantities of starting material are needed for analysis.

Institution: BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOC-BROOKHAVEN LAB

 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LAB

 UPTON, NY 11973

 Fiscal Year: 2003

 Department: Project Start: 15-SEP-2003

 Project End:29-FEB-2008

 ICD: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES

 IRG: ZAI1

 It is interesting to note that many of the first outbreaks of these diseases occurred in areas adjacent to military or biological testing facilities such as Plum Island. In fact Erlichia Chaffiensis, one of the tickborn co-infections, is actually named after Fort Chaffi where it was first isolated. The United States has a long history of conducting field experiments on its own citizens without their knowledge or consent. The U.S. Code, Sec. 50 states it is legal to do so.

 When I speak to others concerning the possibility that our country is already being intentionally decimated by several insid9ous pathogens, they find it hard to believe that certain officials in our government may be allowing this to happen.

I have spoken to a Red Cross pathologist who admitted that the Red Cross does not screen its blood supply for Lyme disease or Mycoplamsa Fermentens. Our Department of Defense knows that these pathogens are spreading through the population. Instead of taking preventative actions our government is actually blocking proper research, education, testing, diagnosis and treatment.

We need to make these institutions accountable for their crimes against humanity.

 

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRDsYqvrYgI

http://www.aidsorigins.com/more-supportive-opvaids-bushmeat-hypothesis-revised-response-recent-faria-paper-science

There’s an excellent award-winning 2003 film now free online called The Origin of AIDS. http://www.originofaids.com/,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWd4KblpDsc,andhttp://freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=123

Considering that humans have been eating primates in Africa for millennia without developing AIDS, the polio vaccine explanation makes far more sense that the “bushmeat” theory, which blames the introduction of HIV into humans through contact with primates killed by Africans for food. Edward Hooper writes about this in his book, The River and in his article at http://www.aidsorigins.com/more-supportive-opvaids-bushmeat-hypothesis-revised-response-recent-faria-paper-science.

 

  1. The Salk polio vaccine doubled cases of polio: http://www.globalpossibilities.org/the-salk-polio-vaccine-tragedy/

THE SALK POLIO VACCINE “TRAGEDY”

Feb 4, 2017 by Casey Coates Danson

History is a powerful thing. If you accurately tell the story of an event that occurred, you get one picture, one understanding of it. Leave one tiny little detail out, however, and the whole picture changes. You can get thousands of details right, but get one wrong, or simply omit telling it, and an historical event can become so distorted that it becomes a lie. Take the story of the Salk inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). During the first half of the 1950s, Jonas Salk, MD developed the first injectable vaccine against polio containing inactivated, or “killed”, strains of the poliovirus.

As a dead, rather than live, virus vaccine, Dr. Salk’s IPV supposedly carried no risk of giving recipients “vaccine-associated polio paralysis.” According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “IPV is produced from wild-type poliovirus strains of each serotype that have been inactivated (killed) with formalin.”

Here’s that little detail, though. The poliovirus that Dr. Salk killed with formalin, or formaldehyde, were not always killed; they sometimes only appeared to be killed.

Live poliovirus, which was put in an injectable vaccine, would appear to be inactivated right after it was made, but sometimes it would ‘resurrect’ in the vial… In essence, the formaldehyde did not kill off all the polioviruses in these vaccines, which led to live polio viruses being injected. As a result, more people developed paralysis from the vaccine in 1955 than would have developed it from a wild, normal natural poliovirus.

Field trials for the Salk vaccine were conducted on more than 1,800,000 children in the United States in 1954. Sponsored by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP), now known as the March of Dimes, “623,972 schoolchildren were injected with vaccine or placebo, and more than a million others participated as ‘observed’ controls.’

On April 12, 1955, Thomas Francis Jr., MD, director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, announced to the world that the Salk vaccine was “safe, effective, and potent,”—that it was “up to 90%” effective in preventing paralytic polio. Dr. Francis had been one of Dr. Salk’s professors at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health Department of Epidemiology where Salk did his postgraduate training.

During mid-April of 1955, about 400,000 people—mostly schoolchildren—in the US were vaccinated with the Salk vaccine manufactured by Cutter Laboratories. It turns out that more than 200,000 of these children, living in five western states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada and New Mexico), were injected with vaccines “in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective.” The Cutter-produced vaccines ended up causing 40,000 cases of polio. It severely paralyzed 200 children and killed 10.

The first of these cases to be reported was that of a young girl named Susan Pierce, who had received the vaccine on April 18, 1955.

Five days later, she developed fever and neck stiffness. Six days later, her left arm was paralyzed. Seven days later, she was placed in an iron lung, and nine days later, she was dead.

In his book The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis, Paul Offit, MD writes, “Seventy-five percent of Cutter’s victims were paralyzed for the rest of their lives.” A team led by epidemiologist Alexander Langmuir of the Communicable Diseases Center (now the CDC) in Atlanta, GA determined that “the disease caused by Cutter’s vaccine was worse than the disease caused by natural polio virus,” adds Dr. Offit.

Children given Cutter’s vaccine were more likely to be paralyzed in their arms, more likely to suffer severe and permanent paralysis, more likely to require breathing assistance in iron lungs, and more likely to die than children naturally infected with polio.

The so-called “Cutter Incident” led to the recall of the Cutter vaccine and the eventual replacement of the Salk IPV with the attenuated (weakened) live oral polio vaccine (OPV) developed by Albert Sabin, MD and introduced in 1963. (A modified inactivated Salk vaccine was re-introduced in the 1990s after the only cases of polio occurring in the US were vaccine strain polio cases because live OPV can cause vaccine strain polio in the recipient or a close contact of a recently vaccinated person shedding live vaccine strain polio virus in body fluids.)

But the fact that some improperly inactivated lots of the original polio vaccine paralyzed and killed American children was concealed from the public for a long time.

In their book Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History, Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk write, “You may be wondering how this information was concealed from the public for nearly fifty years. Congressman Percy Priest ordered and chaired a full investigation of the vaccine controversy.”)9 According to them, Congressman Priest, who represented the 6th District of Tennessee, admitted in 1956 that,… in the previous year (1955) many responsible persons had felt that the public should be spared the ordeal of ‘knowledge about controversy.’ If word ever got out that the Public Health Service had actually done something damaging to the health of the American people, the consequences would be terrible… We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited.”

Two key points to note here. First, the problem with the Cutter-produced vaccine should have come as a surprise to the scientists and public health officials who were familiar with the development of the Salk IPV. According to Dr. Humphries and Bystrianyk:

The Salk invention was an injectable, supposedly formaldehyde-inactivated version of poliovirus vaccine. There were serious problems with the viral inactivation process that were known by insiders from the outset of the vaccine’s development.

Unfortunately, whenever scientists involved in the vaccine’s development raised concerns that poliovirus had not been fully killed, they were “rapidly subdued.”

As a result of ignoring the warnings by highly qualified scientists who repeatedly and publicly explained why and how the inactivation process was flawed from the beginning, the vaccine virus needlessly infected, paralyzed, and killed children and their household contacts.

Secondly, Cutter Laboratories was not the only manufacturer of the Salk IPV. Wyeth Laboratories also produced a defective Salk vaccine that caused paralysis. Other pharmaceutical companies are believed to have done so, as well. But only Cutter’s vaccine was recalled. This means that, potentially, tens of millions of doses of improperly inactivated “live” Salk vaccine were sold and injected into children in the US and around the world until the “inactivated” Salk vaccine was replaced by the live oral Sabin vaccine in the early-1960s.

This may help explain, at least partially, why the cases of polio in the US increased by 50% from 1957 to 1958, and by 80% between 1958 and 1959.10 According to Bernard Greenberg, PhD, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health:

In five New England states cases of polio roughly doubled after polio vaccine was introduced. Nevertheless in the midst of the polio panic of the 1950s, with pressure to find a magic bullet, statistics were manipulated by health authorities to give the quite the opposite impression.

Keep in mind that these dramatic increases in polio following the introduction of the Salk IPV occurred shortly after the US government had already significantly relaxed its guidelines for diagnosing polio. In 1954, the government redefined polio. I wrote about this other little detail of history that has been widely overlooked in my article “Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined.” Dr. Greenberg explained this classic example of government sleight of hand…

In order to qualify for classification as paralytic poliomyelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Prior to 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. After 1954, residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days and again 50 to 70 days after the onset of the disease. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer lasting paralysis.

We can only imagine how much worse the official number of polio cases would have been during the second half of the 1950s had the same diagnosis standard continued to be followed, rather than arbitrarily changed in midstream. By any measure, the early Salk polio vaccine campaigns cannot be termed an unqualified “success.” Yet, since the story has been so repeatedly, utterly inaccurately told, our understanding of the history of the polio vaccine “miracle” is that it is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. And, as we have seen with the Sabin live oral polio vaccine that continues to cause vaccine strain polio cases around the world, there are big questions about how high the price has been—and will continue to be—for using that polio vaccine as well.

History is indeed a powerful thing. If you teach it wrong for more than half a century, it is hard to unteach, because a particular version of a story can become so ingrained in the public’s collective memory that few can accept that what we’ve come to believe to be an unquestioned scientific truth is, in fact, a myth.

And if that sacred cow is an illusion, then what else may we have gotten wrong along the way? Suddenly, mainstream vaccine science doesn’t feel so certain, so… scientific.

About Bev Jo

I’ve been a Lesbian from my earliest memories and am proud to be a Lesbian. Lesbians are my people and my blood. My life’s work has defending Lesbians and our culture and existence against those who oppress us. Working-class, ex-catholic, mostly European-descent (with some First Nations, probably Shawnee, ancestry), from poverty class culture. I’m a Lifelong Lesbian, born near Cincinnati, Ohio in 1950. I became lovers with my first lover in 1968, became part of a Lesbian community in 1970, and became a Dyke Separatist in 1972. I helped create Radical Lesbian Feminist and Separatist community and worked on some of the earliest Lesbian Feminist projects, such as the Lesbian Feminist Conference in Berkeley in 1972, the newspaper “Dykes and Gorgons” in 1973, the women’s bookstore, Lesbian coffeehouse, and taught self defense to women and girls for ten years. I’ve been published in journals and anthologies, including “For Lesbians Only,” “Finding the Lesbians,” “Lesbian Friendships,” “Amazones d’Hier, Lesbiennes Aujourd’hui,” “Mehr als das Herz Gebrochen,” the Journal for Lesbian Studies, Lesbian Ethics, Sinister Wisdom, Trivia, and Rain and Thunder. With Linda Strega and Ruston, I co-wrote our book, “Dykes-Loving-Dykes: Dyke Separatist Politics for Lesbians Only” in 1990. Our book and my more recent articles have been updated at my blog https://bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/ I’ve been disabled since 1981 with ME/CFIDS (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) and MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.) I love nature and plants and animals — and especially the animals who are feared and hated and killed by people who don’t even know them, just as Lesbians are. I’ve learned to love rats especially, who I do not consider inferior to humans. I’m a spiritual atheist, but I’ve found out that there is definitely life after death because a little rat returned from the dead for three days to comfort us. These hated little animals are so kind and loving, and willing to die for someone they love. I say, in our fight to protect the earth — distrust all “truths” we are taught by patriarchy. The true truth is often the opposite.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Additional Radical Lesbian Feminist writings, Dykes-Loving-Dykes: Dyke Separatist Politics, Our book 25 years later with extensive additions, Radical Lesbian Feminism, Radical Lesbian Feminist politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A CHANCE TO SURVIVE CANCER — Doctors Are Not God

  1. Pingback: Working Class Radical Feminism by Bev Jo

  2. Pingback: Ageism – A Radical Lesbian Feminist Perspective | Bev Jo — Radical Lesbian Feminist writing

  3. Pingback: Radical Feminism Is Real Feminism by Bev Jo | Bev Jo — Radical Lesbian Feminist writing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s