From http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/ijhs_mammography.htm :

DANGERS OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY
Mammography poses a wide range of risks of which women worldwide still remain uninformed.

Radiation Risks
Radiation from routine mammography poses significant cumulative risks of initiating and promoting breast cancer. Contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial- and similar to that from a chest X-ray or spending one week in Denver, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose)- the routine practice of taking four films for each breast results in some 1,000-fold  greater exposure, 1 rad, focused on each breast rather than the entire chest. Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of about 10 rads for each breast. As emphasized some three decades ago, the premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad of exposure increasing breast cancer risk by 1 percent, resulting in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk over ten years of premenopausal screening, usually from ages 40 to 50; risks are even greater for "baseline" screening at younger ages, for which there is no evidence of any future relevance. Furthermore, breast cancer risks from mammography are up to fourfold higher for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of
all breast cancers annually in the United States.

Cancer Risks from Breast Compression
As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle "cancerous breasts with care- for fear of accidentally disseminating cells" and spreading cancer. Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers.

Delays in Diagnostic Mammography
As increasing numbers of premenopausal women are responding to the ACS's aggressively promoted screening, imaging centers are becoming flooded and overwhelmed. Resultingly, patients referred for diagnostic mammography are now experiencing potentially dangerous delays, up to several months, before they can be examined.

UNRELIABILITY OF MAMMOGRAPHY
Falsely Negative Mammograms
Missed cancers are particularly common in premenopausal women owing to the dense and highly glandular structure of their breasts and increased proliferation late in their menstrual cycle. Missed cancers are also common in post-menopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy, as about 20 percent develop breast densities that make their mammograms as difficult to read as those of premenopausal women.

Interval Cancers
About one-third of all cancers- and more still of premenopausal cancers, which are aggressive, even to the extent of doubling in size in one month, and more likely to metastasize- are diagnosed in the interval between successive annual mammograms. Premenopausal women, particularly, can thus be lulled into a false sense of security by a supposedly negative result on an annual mammogram and fail to seek medical advice.

Falsely Positive Mammogram
Mistakenly diagnosed cancers are particularly common in premenopausal women, and also in postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy, resulting in needless anxiety, more mammograms, and unnecessary biopsies. For women with multiple high-risk factors, including a strong family history, prolonged use of the contraceptive pill, early menarche, and nulliparity- just those groups that are most strongly urged to have annual mammograms- the cumulative risk of false positives increases to "as high as 100 percent" over a decade's screening.

Overdiagnosis
Overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment are among the major risks of mammography. The widespread and virtually unchallenged acceptance of screening has resulted in a dramatic increase in thediagnosis of ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS), a pre-invasive cancer, with a current estimated incidence of about 40,000 annually. DCIS is usually recognized as micro-calcifications and generally treated by lumpectomy plus radiation or even mastectomy and chemotherapy. However, some 80 percent of all DCIS never become invasive even if left untreated. Furthermore, the breast cancer mortality from DCIS is the same- about 1 percent- both for women diagnosed and treated early and for those diagnosed later following the development of invasive cancer. That early detection of DCIS does not reduce mortality is further confirmed by the 13-year follow-up results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study. Nevertheless, as recently stressed, "the public is much less informed about over-diagnosis than false positive results. In a recent nationwide survey of women, 99 percent of respondents were aware of the possibility of false positive results from mammography, but only 6 percent were aware of either DCIS by name or the fact that mammography could detect a form of 'cancer' that often doesn't progress".

Quality Control
In 1992 Congress passed the National Mammography Standards Quality Assurance Act requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that screening centers review their results and performance: collect data on biopsy outcomes and match them with the original radiologist's interpretation of the films. However, the centers do not release these data because the Act does not require them to do so. It is essential that this information now be made fully public so that concerns about the reliability of mammography can be further evaluated. Activist breast cancer groups would most likely strongly support, if not help to initiate, such overdue action by the FDA.

FAILURE TO REDUCE BREAST CANCER MORTALITY
Despite the long-standing claims, the evidence that routine mammography screening allows early detection and treatment of breast cancer, thereby reducing mortality, is at best highly questionable. In fact, "the overwhelming majority of breast cancers are unaffected by early detection, either because they are aggressive or slow growing". There is supportive evidence that the major variable predicting survival is "biological determinism- a combination of the virulence of the individual tumor plus the host's immune response," rather than just early detection.

Claims for the benefit of screening mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality are based on eight international controlled trials involving about 500,000 women. However, recent meta-analysis of these trials revealed that only two, based on 66,000 postmenopausal women, were adequately randomized to allow statistically valid conclusions. Based on these two trials, the authors concluded that "there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast cancer mortality- not even a tendency towards an effect." Accordingly, the authors concluded that there is no longer any justification for screening mammography; further evidence for this conclusion will be detailed at the May 6, 2001, annual meeting of the National Breast Cancer Coalition in Washington, D. C., and published in the July report of the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

Even assuming that high quality screening of a population of women between the ages of 50 and 69 would reduce breast cancer mortality by up to 25 percent, yielding a reduced relative risk of 0.75, the chances of any individual woman benefiting are remote. For women in this age group, about 4 percent are likely to develop breast cancer annually, about one in four of whom, or 1 percent overall, will die from this disease. Thus, the 0.75 relative risk applies to this 1 percent, so 99.75 percent of the women screened are unlikely to benefit.

THE UNITED STATES VERSUS OTHER NATIONS
No nation other than the United States routinely screens premenopausal women by mammography. In this context, it may be noted that the January 1997 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference recommended against premenopausal screening, a decision that the NCI, but not the ACS, accepted. However, under pressure from Congress and the ACS, the NCI reversed its decision some three months later in favor of premenopausal screening.

The U. S. overkill extends to the standard practice of taking two or more mammograms per breast annually in postmenopausal women. This contrasts with the more restrained European practice of a single view every two to three years.

More information at
http://chetday.com/mammogram.html

http://www.awakenedwoman.com/breast_cancer.htm

BREAST CANCER TREATMENT
SUMMARY

Let us see how well did we establish the basic principles of integrative breast cancer treatment. What is proven, and what is not? What is supported by facts, and what is based on hearsay or speculation?

1. Cancer cells survive through fermentation. Proof: 1931 Nobel Prize in Medicine for this discovery, given to Otto Warburg at the Max Planck Institute. Proof: May 2007, Johns Hopkins Institute, statement about cancer cells and their sugar consumption. See page on fermentation.

Thus, it can be stated that the metabolism of cancer cells is based on fermentation. Anyone who wants to dispute this, or wishes to dismiss it as unimportant, would have to prove his or her point against the authorities quoted above.

2. Fermentation is caused by a soluble ferment or zymase, secreted by yeast or other fungal microbes. The driving force behind fermentation is a living microbe, without which fermentation cannot occur. For fermentation to happen, ferments (zymase enzymes) are needed; these are secreted by yeast or mold. Conclusion: In every cancer cell, there lives a fungal microbe. When that microbe dies, the cell also dies.
This shows that a cancer cell is always occupied by a living fungal microbe. This is basic biology, and it is indisputable. As a result, it is correct to state that cancer is of a fungal nature. This is not to say that cancer is a fungus, but that it is driven by fungal life.
Anyone disputing this fact must also dispute the fact that cancer cells live by fermentation.

3. The above information tells us that in order to destroy cancer cells, we either must target the fungal microbe that lives in it, or disrupt the fermentation-based metabolism of the cancer cell. Any treatment strategy that ignores fermentation, as well as the fungal presence in cancer, is inadequate to deal with the disease, and should be abandoned.
Any treatment that uses substances that are toxic to the human organism, in order to eliminate cancer cells, is using crude toxicity to kill cells, without addressing the fermented nature of the cancer cells, and without targeting the fungal life in them. This approach ignores the scientific achievements of the past 75 years, and displays a behaviour that can only be called idiotic, or intentionally harmful to the patient.

4. Sodium bicarbonate is a substance that is incomparably more toxic to fungi than any of the chemotherapeutic agents used by allopathic oncology, yet sodium bicarbonate is totally harmless to healthy cells. It is being used since more than a century in gardening and in agriculture against fungal infections. There are several patents in the USA focusing on the anti-fungal capabilities of sodium bicarbonate.

5. In order to selectively target cancer cells with intravenous sodium bicarbonate, insulin potentiation and/or DMSO can be used. This combination is able to carry a megadose of sodium bicarbonate into the cancer cells, without wasting any on healthy ones. Insulin potentiation is based on the same principles as the PETscan technology, and it is practiced in 42 medical clinics in the USA, so it would be difficult to dispute it. The ability of DMSO to
selectively target cancer cells first has been demonstrated in 1968 and in 1972, and confirmed since by countless researchers. The 1972 trial have been witnessed by Dr. Stanley Jacob, the foremost authority on DMSO in the United States.

6. Besides sodium bicarbonate, there are other non-toxic anti-cancer substances that are more effective than chemotherapy. Both artemisinin and vitamin C are capable of eliminating cancer cells. Both can be potentiated with either insulin or with DMSO, or with both. These combinations are nontoxic, targeted, and very effective. For clinical data, please read the reports.

7. As oral supportive therapies, Avemar, ellagic acid and zeolite are the frontrunners. Intravenous ozone is an adjunctive intravenous protocol that is highly effective, according American and European experts.

8. Cancer begins when a weak or sick cell, instead of dying, switches to a fermentation- based metabolism. Medical science doesn't have the answer to the problem of weak or sick cells, but it does know how to prevent cancer from growing into a tumor. Thermography is able to detect cancer at the microscopic level, where it is not life threatening, and it is easy to deal with. The above described treatments will eliminate these early signs easily.

No allopathic oncologist is able to argue with the information on this website. They do not possess the knowledge even to evaluate it; they've never learned about it in medical school. The best they can do is to call Dr. Taliano, us, and possibly you, names. This shouldn't bother you. Where you should draw the line is when they want you to submit to mortally dangerous and harmful procedures.