bOObs: The War on Women’s Breasts
Written, directed and produced by Megan S. Smith
WayMark Productions
Distributed by Cinema Libre Studio
Our mainstream medical system is still widely trusted despite a rather pathetic track record. The basis for this trust is a lot of fake news put out by an industry that is very adept at patting itself on the back. The film bOObs seeks to counter the fake news with a few facts specifically on the subject of mammograms. Dr. Ben Johnson and other experts on the biological effects of radiation are interviewed and have some interesting points to make.
One of the first points is that a mammogram exposes you to about the same amount of radiation as one hundred X-rays. Next point: Contrary to their reputation, mammograms do not achieve early detection. By the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by a mammogram, it has probably been growing for five years or more. Next point: False positives and false negatives are so routine that the mammogram procedure is hardly better than flipping a coin. But they have convinced middle-aged women everywhere that it is very important to flip that coin once a year or so, whether it really does any good or not. It is the “standard of care,” which really means the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have decided this is the best way for them to make money. Doctors and nurses are just as trapped in the system as their patients.
When you see a conventional doctor, you are putting yourself at the mercy of industries that say they care. And they do care, very deeply—about your money. If you need to lose weight, they will help you lose weight, mostly in your wallet. They will respond to concerns about radiation by claiming that you get the same amount of radiation on an airplane. OK, maybe true—but on the plane, that radiation is evenly distributed over your whole body. A mammogram concentrates it just on the chest, which makes a big difference. I’m not sure flying on a plane is the greatest thing for your health, anyway.
According to a study published in The Lancet, not only does mammography not decrease breast cancer mortality but it may increase overall deaths. The stress associated with false positives could be part of that. It is also a very abusive process involving a lot of smashing of body parts that might have a tumor. Never a good idea. Apparently, Switzerland is the only country that has gotten the message and banned mammograms.
The video makes some strong recommendations for prevention and alternative methods of screening. If you must get screened, thermography (especially when combined with ultrasound) has much higher accuracy than mammography. There is no smashing, no radiation, not even any touching.
But there are also ways to reduce your risk, for example, by tossing your junk food in the garbage. Bras that are too tight will cut off blood and lymph circulation, and poor circulation absolutely can lead to cancer. This film does a good job of giving women better information and much better choices than mammography. The thumb is UP.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Winter 2020
🖨️ Print post
This has been clear for quite some time. Contrary to the official narrative (which is based on medical business-fabricated pro-mammogram “scientific” data), there is marginal, if any, reliable evidence that mammography, both conventional and digital (3D), reduces mortality from breast cancer in a significant way in any age bracket but a lot of solid evidence shows the procedure does provide more serious harm than serious benefit — read the books ‘Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy’ by Peter Gotzsche (https://www.amazon.com/Mammography-Screening-Truth-Lies-Controversy/dp/1846195853/ ) and ‘The Mammogram Myth’ by Rolf Hefti (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EJWYG7S/ ).
IF….IF…IF…. women (and men) at large were to examine the mammogram data above and beyond the information of the mammogram business cartel (eg American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Komen), they’d also find that it is almost exclusively the big profiteers of the test, ie. the “experts,” (eg radiologists, oncologists, medical trade associations, breast cancer “charities” etc) who promote the mass use of the test and that most pro-mammogram “research” is conducted by people with massive vested interests tied to the mammogram industry.
Most women are fooled by the misleading medical mantra that early detection by mammography saves lives simply because the public has been fed (“educated” or rather brainwashed) with a very one-sided biased pro-mammogram set of information circulated by the big business of mainstream medicine. The above mentioned two independent investigative works show that early detection does not mean that there is less breast cancer mortality.
Because of this one-sided promotion and marketing of the test by the medical business, women have been obstructed from making an “informed choice” about its benefits and risks which have been inaccurately depicted by the medical industry, favoring their business interests.
Operating and reasoning based on this false body of information is the reason why very few women understand, for example, that a lot of breast cancer survivors are victims of harm instead of receivers of benefit. Therefore, almost all breast cancer “survivors” and the general public blindly repeat the official medical hype and disinformation ad nauseum.
Clearly, the majority of the public still has not realized that modern allopathic medicine is largely a self-serving business instead of an objective selfless service. It’s a sign of effective dissemination of medical propaganda, not that they know the real truth about cancer and mammography.
Any material about mammary development and how to enhance boob size?
my email Eduardomcmanhaes@outlook.com