A dangerous squeeze
For many years, I have been saying that people are misled by the false paradigm of "early detection of cancer leads to a cure." This mantra has been especially touted for breast cancer, with women being urged to get mammograms early and often. Now I have support for my position from a distinguished doctor, Professor Michael Baum of University College Hospital, London.
"Thousands of women are being deceived by the national breast cancer program they are led to believe that early detection of cancer will save their breasts," Professor Baum reported to an international breast cancer screening conference in Brussels. Up to half of all women with "early" breast cancer are having mastectomies that might later prove to be unnecessary, he said.
Dr. Baum stunned his audience of breast cancer specialists when he said, "One of the false promises of the NHS screening program is 'come for screening, catch it early, and we will save your breast.' This is not true." He went on to add: "I think there is a deception going on."
The problem comes with so-called ductal carcinomas, small, localized, very confined lesions that usually require no therapy. They can be closely monitored with no risk to the patient and may never have to be treated. Yet, women are misled and panicked into an unnecessary mastectomy.
As I have pointed out in previous reports, the very act of performing a mammogram may activate an otherwise quiescent and benign condition. I call it the "compression syndrome." To get good pictures, the radiologist must compress the breast, and the more he squeezes, the better the pictures. If he misses a tumor, he is subject to litigation, or at least embarrassment, so he squeezes away.
"It seems to me," Dr. Baum said, "to be a breach of trust. I am not for or against screening; I am for women having the right to make an informed choice. Women are socially engineered into thinking that breast screening is a good thing. I believe that if women were given the full story at least half would still opt for screening."
Which means that half wouldn't
There was a romantic story early in World War II about grandma's bilberry preserves enabling bombardiers to better see their targets. It was just that, a romantic story. Despite supplement sales over $97 million in 1999 alone, there is no scientific evidence that bilberry has any positive effects on vision.
"RAF pilots who survived and continued consuming the jam or other bilberry products had perfect vision both near and far as well as a complete absence of eye disorders throughout their lives," writes one herb vendor.
Bilberry has become one of the 10 most popular herbs in the United States as a result of the "Grandma Jams the Germans" tale.
Claims have been made linking bilberry with improvements in all sorts of medical conditions--from hypoglycemia to stress, to inflammation, to night blindness, and, of course, macular degeneration. All with no science behind them, just folklore. This is the kind of trash that gives the natural health movement a bad name.
So what did dramatically increase the accuracy of bombardiers as the war progressed? It was VITAMIN R-also known as radar. Wanting to keep radar top secret, the Allies said the improved accuracy of the bombing was due to something added to the diet.