breast health cancer prevention
    Bookmark and Share

Compelling arguments against mammography screening.....


Sister, hello Susun's recommendation against mamography screening for all women annually is based on much research by the National Cancer Institute and other credible bodies of research, you could read more about it here

I know for myself I have stopped going to doctors because they pressure me to do things I am not comfortable doing, and I believe Susun is seeking to educate women that they do have a choice. If they choose a mammogram, knowing the risks, so be it, if they choose not to have one, its important for them to take measures to do self exams, etc...

At the article on this site
argues the following:

~ 70% of all positive mamograms, upon biopsy, do not show any presence of cancer.
~ one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year
~ over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent
~ scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk
~ estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources
~ Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography
~ mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure
~ estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography
~ among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies
~ Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms
~ pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus
~ advises against mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it
~ children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults
~ risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure
~ the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms
~ Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women 40-50.
~ study suggests that women 40-50 are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly
~ read dozens of doctors testimony at

So, it seems from all the evidence that mammograms are more risky than safe, and more women stand to get cancer from regular mammography screening.

It is a blessing that this technology worked for you, still I do think your success story is an exception to the rule, and if women are educated about the risks they can make their own informed decisions. Susun does recommend to women that they actively pursue an anti-cancer lifestyle, and if they do fear cancer to take steps to prevent or reverse cancer, including allying with red clover is an article with some of her suggestions,

And an article for women who do choose mammograms

An article for women who may be worried about breast cancer

Article for women who find they do have cancer

Sending love and blessings,


Mammograms -Who Needs Them?
Excerpt from Breast Cancer? Breast Health! By Susun S. Weed

Perhaps no aspect of breast cancer is more widely publicized than screening mammography. Ads on television, in magazines, and in the daily paper urge women to deal with fear about breast cancer by having a yearly mammogram. We're even told that doing this is a way to "really care for yourself."

But screening mammograms don't prevent breast cancer. A mammogram is an x-ray and x-rays cause cancer. The ads promoting regular screening mammography are paid for by those who stand to profit from their widespread acceptance and use-the manufacturers of the equipment and x-ray film. Whose health does this technology really benefit? Women's health? Or corporate health?

Should you have a screening mammogram? At what age? How frequently? Science hasn't agreed on answers to these questions.1 I believe that my anti-cancer lifestyle (see page xv) will decrease my risk of dying from breast cancer in a way that regular mammograms won't. I care for my breasts with infused herbal oils, regular loving touch, organic foods, and healthy exercise-and forgo regular screening mammograms. Of course, you can do it all in the Wise Woman Tradition. The point is to pay attention to your breasts.

Mammograms aren't safe

Professor Anthony Miller, Toronto National Cancer Institute, says cancer cells may be squeezed into the bloodstream under the pressure of the mammographic plates.11 Screening mammograms are unsafe other ways, too: they expose sensitive breast tissues to radiation, and they increase your chances of having a biopsy and being overtreated for carcinoma in situ.

Radiation Dangers
Scientists agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. Cellular DNA in the breast is more easily damaged by very small doses of radiation than thyroid tissue or bone marrow; in fact, breast cells are second only to fetal tissues in sensitivity to radiation. And the younger the breast cells, the more easily their DNA is damaged by radiation. As an added risk, one percent of American women carry a hard-to-detect oncogene which is triggered by radiation; a single mammogram increases their risk of breast cancer by a factor of 4-6 times.12

The usual dose of radiation during a mammographic x-ray is from 0.25 to1 rad with the very best equipment; that's 1-4 rads per screening mammogram (two views each of two breasts). And, according to Samuel Epstein, M.D., of the University of Chicago's School of Public Health, the dose can be ten times more than that . Sister Rosalie Bertell-one of the world's most respected authorities on the dangers of radiation-says one rad increases breast cancer risk one percent and is the equivalent of one year's natural aging.13

If a woman has yearly mammograms from age 55 to age 75, she will receive a minimum of 20 rads of radiation. For comparison, women who survived the atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima or Nagasaki absorbed 35 rads. Though one large dose of radiation can be more harmful than many small doses, it is important to remember that damage from radiation is cumulative. Many women born in the 1930s and '40s-who are now considering the benefits of postmenopausal mammographic screening-have already absorbed quite a bit of radioactivity into their breast tissues from fallout from the atomic bomb tests of the 1950s. (See page18.)

The American Cancer Society claims that the radiation danger from a screening mammogram is no more than that caused by natural radiation in the environment. Not so. The amount of radiation from even one breast x-ray is 11.9 times the yearly dose absorbed by the entire body, according to Diana Hunt, former saleswoman for an x-ray manufacturing company, UCLA Medical Center graduate, and senior staff x-ray technologist for 20 years.14 (See page 18 for a list of rads absorbed while skiing in Denver, flying in an airplane, and other activities often cited as comparable to mammographic screening.)

A study published in the October 20, 1993 issue of Journal of the National Cancer Institute found a statistically significant increase in the incidence of breast cancer following radiation treatment of various benign breast diseases even among women older than 40 at the time of the first treatment.

Treatment Dangers
You increase your risk of being overtreated for breast cancer whenever you have a screening mammogram. Eight out of ten masses detected by screening mammogram are false alarms, but if something is seen in your mammogram you'll be urged to undergo a biopsy.

this is a 17 part series, click here for the full chapter

dont take Susun Weed's opinion for granted, read what others have to say, here are just a few other opinions...


By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
February 28, 2006

Nobel laureate, Dr. John Gofman, believed that 50% of cancer was caused by unnecessary radiation primarily related to diagnostic xray studies. Large population studies in Denmark and Canada have revealed that the death rates from breast cancer in women taking regular mammograms and women who have never had mammograms are identical. This probably can be explained by the observation that when a mammogram is positive for a breast cancer the tumor has been present for up to 8 or 10 years. This long delay before a tumor becomes visible in a mammogram allows ample time for the cancer to have spread by lymphatic and vascular channels.

An additional problem with mammograms is that approximately 10% of women who do have breast cancer will have normal mammograms. The false sense of security provided by normal mammography in these women obviously delays the diagnosis of breast cancer even more.

If this information is valid why are women still having mammograms? Mammography simply joins the long list of therapies and procedures where desire for profits and lowering of world population levels have superceded the welfare of our citizens;

Flouridation Of Water. Flouride is a very toxic byproduct of the manufacturing of aluminum. It does not prevent and may actually increase the incidence of tooth decay.

Genetically Modified Foods. These dangerous foods have never been studied for safety as they are unnatural and surely cause disease (immune system dysfunction, cancer, allergies etc.). They are not labeled so you are eating them without any ability to protect your health. Wheat - 80% GMO, Corn - 65% GMO, Soy - 80% GMO, etc. Dr. W. Lee Cowden reports that nearly every person with a chronic illness is allergic to soy.[1]

Massive Vaccination Programs For Children. The escalating rates of autism, autoimmune illnesses and cancer appear to be at least partially related to mandated vaccines which supply immature immune systems with toxic serum and adjuvants (mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, foreign cell proteins, infectious organisms). Religious beliefs may allow your children to escape the 35 mandatory vaccines. Vaccines represent a lucrative no risk source of profits as Congress has exempted vaccine manufacturers from liability in the event of adverse reactions which are common.

Deaths Caused By Pharmaceutical Drugs. More than 125,000 persons die annually in the U.S. from adverse reactions to correctly prescribed medicines.

Chemotherapy For Malignancies. The survival rates for chemotherapy are not improving after many years of use. These drugs are quite toxic and result in death if not stopped at an appropriate time. Effective alternative therapies for cancer have been suppressed or vilified for more than 100 years (Coley’s toxins, Rife’s electronic invention, Koch’s substances, Essiac tea, antineoplaston, etc.)

Mandatory Phosphorus, Potassium, Nitrogen Fertilizer. Requiring U.S. farmers to use NPP fertilizer guaranteed poor health. The critical nutrient sulfur and trace minerals are lacking in this fertilizer. Lack of trace minerals impairs enzyme function.

Advocacy Of Dangerous Dietary Programs And Unwillingness To Remove Dangerous Food Substances. Recommended general diets ignore the danger of sugar excess to pacify the sugar cartel. Hospital heart diets often include the very transfats that cause arteriosclerosis. These synthetic transfats have never been exposed for the health menaces they are. Monosodium glutamate, chlorine containing sugar substitutes and Aspartame (Nutrasweet) have been largely ignored by health agencies established to protect public health.
Codex Alimentaris. This diabolic creation of the pharmaceutical industry will possibly soon convert all vitamins, minerals, aminoacids and nutritional supplements into drugs requiring a physician’s prescription to permit you to pay 10 times more for the ability to continue to take these substances. This is operational in Norway and Germany and all these basic health substances cost 10 times more than in the days prior to Codex.

Aluminum Is Everywhere In Our Society (water treatment facilities use alum, foil, deodorants, antacids, cooking utensils, baking compounds) There is considerable evidence that aluminum plays a significant role in causing Alzheimer’s Disease along with mercury.

Mercury Contamination. Dental amalgams, fish, vaccines, fluorescent light bulbs, coal power plants, sewage treatment, hospital waste disposal, crematoriums, plastic casings, batteries, paint, shoe light bulbs and thermostats all provide mercury that can reach human beings. The ADA denies amalgams are a health risk yet a broken thermometer bulb requires a detailed cleansing protocol. Mercury is the only metal that easily vaporizes making inhalation a big problem.
The Health Benefits Of Soy Foods Have Been Heavily Advertised

The truth is that the high estrogen content of soy foods is clearly carcinogenic[2] –especially likely to cause breast cancer. Too much estrogen causes excessive growth of tissue and the breast readily responds to this estrogenic stimulation.

Soy foods cause premature puberty in young girls and delayed sexual maturation in boys .Infant girls fed soy formula have phytoestrogen levels 20 times higher than normal for girls fed breast milk. These girls may proceed to begin menstruation and breast development by age 7. Boys fed soy have delay in onset of normal puberty with a smaller than normal penis and a greater tendency to homosexuality.[3]

Soybean protein is inexpensive and has spread all over the world. All Western soy foods are currently more than 80% contaminated by genetically modified soy beans and this is almost certainly a bad feature (GMO soybean manufacturers have not released the results of their health studies on these foods as these results could have damaged the market for GMO foods). Unbiased experts are certain these GMO foods will cause cancer, allergies and immune dysfunction as these GMO foods are foreign to the human body. Most soy foods contain isoflavones which are potent estrogens. Soy foods will aggravate our estrogen excess that we receive from petrochemicals, plastics, hormone implatation in animals and cosmetics (xenoestrogens).. Symptoms related to estrogen will thus be worstened in women and males will have greater difficulty warding off impotence and decreased fertility.

The U.S. food with the fastest increasing incidence of allergic reactions is soybeans. This is very likely due to the body’s inability to metabolize this foreign synthetic GMO soybean protein.

Tofu is reported to contribute to accelerated[4] brain aging resulting in dementia

Also it is not a comfort to me to know that we are eating a small amount of Roundup herbicide every time we eat U. S. soybeans as Monsanto’s Roundup tolerant GMO soybeans[5] are widely grown. Previous to this new GMO product, soybeans promptly died when sprayed with Roundup. Eating Roundup herbicide can not be good for human beings.

Soy milk causes significant elevation in lipoprotein (a) levels. This undesirable effect was discovered at Loma Linda.[6] All soy products particularly the milk damage the thyroid gland and impair the body’s hormone balance.

Common soy foods contain sufficient oxalate to contribute to the forming of kidney stones. The absorption of minerals is impeded by phytates in soybeans.

Soybeans must undergo chemical processing before they become edible. This processing includes acid baths, extreme heat, and spray drying. To improve the taste artificial flavorings such as MSG, preservatives, sweeteners, emulsifiers and synthetic nutrients are added. This processing makes soybeans a very artificial food. The best way to avoid soy is to carefully read labels (watch out for textured protein, vegetable protein etc.)

The Breast Cancer Epidemic Is Steadily Getting Worse.

Massive campaigns exist to encourage women to have annual mammograms. More breast tissue is thus exposed to dangerous cancer causing radiation each year. This yearly ritual generates false positive and false negative results leading to many worthless operations and considerable anxiety in women incorrectly diagnosed. Needle biopsies are often done to evaluate breast masses. This procedure occasionally spreads small foci of tumor along the needle track potentially increasing the spread of tumor cells. Mammograms have had more than adequate time to prove their worth and they have failed miserably.

Breast cancer is a huge growth industry (more than 6.6 billion dollars[7] annually). This industry supports radiologists, xray technicians, surgeons, nurses, manufacturers of xray equipment, hospitals etc. and will not be allowed to disappear by curing and preventing breast cancer.

A few years ago only 12% of U.S. women could expect to develop breast cancer. . Now with more years of mammography, transfats, increased estrogenic environmental contamination and continued consumption of soy products the rate of breast cancer has increased to perhaps one out of every 8 or 9 women. When will women rise up and say we have had enough of the possibly deliberate mis-management of our problem. Women must take charge of their own health and ignore self serving directives to come in for your annual mammogram. What should be done?

Thermography Can Diagnose Early Breast Cancer

Digital infrared thermography detects changes in blood flow in response to cold air blown over the breasts. The blood vessels supplying a cancer are generated by the cancer and are thus not controlled by the autonomic nervous system. This means that blood continues to flow to the malignancy when all other parts of the breast are receiving less blood because of the cold air. producing vasoconstriction. The blood flowing to the cancer shows up as a hot spot on the heat detecting screen with increased blood flow at the site of the tumor. A benign condition like a fibrocystic breast mass retains the normal blood supply controlled by the autonomic nervous system so the cold air causes diffuse decreases in blood flow in a uniform fashion. The thermogram enables breast tumors to be diagnosed when they are tiny and just getting started.


Mammograms - Who needs them?
Excerpt from Breast Cancer? Breast Health! By Susun S. Weed


Mammograms - Who needs them?
All mammograms are x-rays.
Mammograms are inaccurate.
Mammograms can't tell if there's cancer.
Mammograms don't replace breast self-exams.
Mammographic screening increases risk of breast cancer mortality in premenopausal women.
Why I haven't had a baseline mammogram.
Mammograms aren't safe.
Screening mammograms lead to overtreatment.
Screening mammograms don't increase your chances of being cured . . . or of surviving longer.
Mammograms don't find cancer before it metastasizes.
Aren't mammograms life saving for women over 55?
Yearly screening mammograms aren't cost effective to society nor are they safe environmentally.
Is there a less risky way to participate in screening mam-mography?
Mammograms distract us from the need for societal commitment to true prevention.
Are there other ways to find early-stage breast cancers?
Mammograms don't promote breast health.
If You Decide to Have a Mammogram.

Read more Excerpts from Breast Cancer? Breast Health!

Breast Cancer? Breast Health!
Author: Susun S. Weed. Foods, exercises, and attitudes to keep your breasts healthy. Supportive complimentary medicines to ease side-effects of surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or tamoxifen.Foreword by Christiane Northrup, M.D. 380 pages, index, illustrations.

"What a gift to women of all ages! This book helped me overcome my fear of what I might discover during self-examination. I am so grateful that this book came my way and I am healthier in mind, body, and spirit thanks to Ms. Weed's wise words! All of my questions and doubts were addressed in a voice that speaks for all the wise women who have chosen the path of natural and sensible personal health. If I could, I would give a copy of this book to every woman in the world!" Read the Review

Retails for $29.95
Order Breast Cancer? Breast Health! in our Bookshop