I now work at Avalon Tattoo in Pacific Beach, San Diego. My hours are noon-8pm, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday until further notice. Avalon Tattoo is full of amazing artists. Besides myself, the NEWEST member of the crew is FOUR YEARS DEEP at the shop, so it's a very strong tattoo family. I'm honored to be included.
The shop rate is $150 an hour. Avalon Tattoo Inc. is a very tightly-run ship. When it's tattoo time, we don't play around. I expect to sit down and work for 8 straight hours during every shift.
I would prefer to be TATTOOING ONLY while I'm on my shift. I would like to get all your artwork and planning done ahead of time so we can have a very productive session.
If you have a tattoo project by me that was started BEFORE I began working at Avalon, I got clearance from the shop manager to make special arrangements for you. This applies to you only, and not any new clients. Please speak to me privately about this.
Definitely stop by Avalon Tattoo if you're in the neigborhood. Please remember, I'll usually have my nose in some intense project while I'm on shift.
See you at Avalon!
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Ugly Bill Tuning a Tattoo Machine - Specialtechnique.net
At the time of this post, this video has about 24000 views...
Sunday, May 16, 2010
NO MAMMOGRAMS! There are better ways.
Text and references by Mike Adams(www.naturalnews.com)
While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.
Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.
The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:
Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23
"The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537
No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23
The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291
A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21
Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540
Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104
Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132
The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544
High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
"Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women."
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%."
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467
Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42
Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305
Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123
As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47
In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12
One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57
One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233
Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53
Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234
For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587
Text and references by Mike Adams(www.naturalnews.com)
While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.
Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.
The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:
Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23
"The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537
No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23
The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291
A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21
Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540
Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104
Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132
The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544
High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
"Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women."
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%."
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467
Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42
Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305
Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123
As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47
In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12
One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57
One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233
Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53
Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234
For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587
Text and references by Mike Adams(www.naturalnews.com)
Holy Silver!
This info was on someone else's blog. This someone else removed the info after being hassled by the FDA. I was lucky enough to grab it and pass it on to you before that happened. They got hassled because they sell a colloidal silver maker, and also had medical info on the same site where the silver maker was sold. I guess this is forbidden by the FDA.
What is silver water or colloidal silver?
Colloidal Silver is a solution of extremely fine sub microscopic particles (.015 - .005 microns) of pure silver suspended in water by a positive electric charge on each particle. The particles remain suspended throughout the solution because these positive charged particles repel each other with a greater force than gravity can exert upon. A powerful germicidal, silver is an exceptional metal in that it is non-toxic to the human body, but lethal to over 650 disease causing bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, and molds; while conventional pharmaceutical antibiotics are typically effective against only 6 or 7 types of bacteria. Some new strains of bacteria classified as MDR (Multiple Drug Resistant) have proven to be resistant to all pharmaceutical antibiotics, but not to colloidal silver due to different germicidal mechanisms of deactivation.
How does colloidal silver work?
Richard Davies and Samuel Etris of The Silver Institute, in a 1996 monograph entitled The Development and Functions of Silver in Water Purification and Disease Control, discuss three mechanisms of deactivation that silver utilizes to incapacitate disease causing organisms. They are Catalytic Oxidation, Reaction with Cell Membranes, and Binding with the DNA of disease organisms to prevent unwinding.
Catalytic Oxidation:
Silver, in its atomic state, has the capacity to absorb oxygen and act as a catalyst to bring about oxidation. Atomic (nascent) oxygen absorbed onto the surface of silver ions in solution will readily react with the sulfhydryl (-S-H) groups surrounding the surface of bacteria or viruses to remove the hydrogen atoms (as water), causing the sulfur atoms to form an R-S-S-R bond; blocking respiration and causing the bacteria to expire. Employing a simple catalytic reduction/oxidation reaction, colloidal silver will react with any negative charge presented by the organism's transport or membrane proteins and deactivate them.
Reaction with Bacterial Cell Membranes:
There is evidence that silver ions attach to membrane surface radicals of bacteria, impairing cell respiration and blocking its energy transfer system. One explanation is based on the nature of enzyme construction: Specific enzymes are required for a given biochemical activity to take place. Enzyme molecules usually require a specific metallic atom as part of the molecular matrix in order to function. A metal of higher valance can replace a metal of lower valance in the enzyme complex, preventing the enzyme from functioning normally. Silver, with a valance of plus 2, can replace many metals with a lower, or equal valance that exhibit weaker atomic bonding properties.
Binding with DNA:
Studies by C.L. Fox and S.M. Modak with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a tenacious bacteria that is difficult to treat, demonstrated that as much as 12% of silver is taken up by the organism's DNA. While it remains unclear exactly how the silver binds to the DNA without destroying the hydrogen bonds holding the lattice together, it nevertheless prevents the DNA from unwinding, an essential step for cellular replication to occur.
How should one use colloidal silver?
Colloidal Silver may be taken orally or topically; applied directly to the skin. It can be used vaginally, anally, atomized or inhaled into the nose or lungs, and dropped into eyes. Liquid silver as well as new gel formulations, may be applied directly to the skin. A few drops on a Q-Tip or Band-Aid may be used to disinfect any wound or sore. Properly prepared, colloidal silver can also be injected into a muscle, a cancerous tumor, or into the bloodstream.
Dosage:
A extremely conservative approach would be to start with 1 or 3 teaspoons once or twice a day, however colloidal silver is not a posionous substance like drugs are and. therefore dosage is not critical-even for children. For colds and flu symptoms, one or two tablespoons 3-6 times daily frequently will speed recovery. Some individuals have reported drinking as much as 16 ozs in the morning and another 16 ozs in the late afternoon to knock down a cold or flu on the first day that symptoms start showing up. They claim that they have been able to completely abort the cold or flu on the first day of symptoms.
For mouth infections, frequently rinse the affected area for at least 6 minutes before swallowing. Overdosing should not be of concern, even if recommended doses are exceeded. If, after a few days of use, one experiences a de-toxification effect in the form of feeling sluggish or mild aches, increase water consumption to speed the elimination of toxins and taper back the silver dosage to match the rate of toxin elimination. It is safe for pregnant and nursing women and is known to aid the developing fetus in growth. It will not generate free radicals or interfere with enzyme activity. It has no reaction with other medications.
Are there any dangers or side effects?
The Environmental Protection Agency's Poison Control Center reports no toxicity listing for Colloidal Silver. Regular ingestion of colloidal silver can act as a second immune system by assisting the body in the war against invading micro-organisms. Unlike pharmaceutical antibiotic which destroy beneficial enzymes, colloidal silver leaves these tissue cell enzymes intact.
<
Colloidal Silver, if used sensibly, is completely non-toxic and will not harm the immune system in any way. Critics of colloidal silver will often warn that regular consumption of colloidal silver might lead to Argyria, a bluish/ gray discoloration of the skin. Dr. Bob Beck debunks this statement as a scare tactic by pro pharmaceutical interests. Dr Beck has indicated that Argyria is caused by silver compounds, such as silver nitrate, silver sulfate, silver sulfadiazine, etc., and not micro particles of pure elemental silver. Apparently, silver colloids are mostly absorbed in the upper gastrointestinal tract, since colloidal silver does not seem to adversely affect friendly bacteria in the lower intestines. Silver can be toxic to nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, but is normally prevented from entering those areas by the blood-brain barrier. Silver has not demonstrated any evidence of carcinogenic activity.
The body eliminates excess silver via the metallothiones. These ubiquitous proteins, first characterized in 1957, have the property of binding with heavy metals, such as silver, into metal-thiolate-cluster structures which aid in transportation, storage, and elimination of nonessential trace metals which enter the body.
How much research has been done on colloidal silver?
Silver has been used as a germicide for thousands of years. Ancient texts, including Pliny the Elder's great tome, Natural History, Book 23 (78 A.D.) discusses the extraordinary wound healing capacity of silver slag as an ingredient in plasters. The German obstetrician, Franz Crede, observed in 1884 that up to 79% of blind children in various orphanages and institutions were born to mothers who, at the time of the child's birth, had venereal disease. He found that a 1% solution of silver nitrate dropped into the eyes of newborns, reduced the incidence of VD caused blindness to less than 0.2%. In 1988, colloidal silver was tested at the UCLA Medical Laboratory.
The UCLA report stated that " The silver solutions were antibacterial for concentrations of 1 million organisms per ml of Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus [which in now resistant to Vancomycin, the strongest pharmaceutical antibiotic available] , Neisseria gonorrhea, Gardnerella Vaginalis, Salmonella Typhi [responsible for salmonella food poisoning and Typhus], and other enteric pathogens; and fungicidal for Candida albicans [the common yeast infection, in vaginitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome], Candida globata, and M. Furfur.
"
Dr Robert Becker, M.D., author of The Body Electric and Crosscurrents found that silver caused cells to dedifferentiate and re-differentiate in the process of regenerative healing.
" What we had actually done was rediscovered the fact that silver killed bacteria, which had been known for centuries...when antibiotics were discovered, clinical uses for silver as an antibiotic were discarded." Becker said in a 1995 interview with Bio/Tech News.
Dr Becker conducted extensive research into the healing properties of silver for many years at the Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. The experiments concluded that silver works on a wide range of bacteria, without any known side effects or damage to the cells of the body. Becker discovered that the silver was doing something more than just killing disease causing organisms: He said it was also causing major growth stimulation of injured tissues. Dr. Becker concluded that the presence of the silver ions may help to regenerate tissue, eliminate old or cancerous cells, and other diseased or abnormal tissue conditions.
Dr. Henry Crooks (author, Use of Colloids in Health Disease) found that silver in the colloidal state is highly germicidal, quite harmless to humans and absolutely non-toxic. From his bacteriological experiments with silver he concluded, "I know of no microbe that is not killed in laboratory experiments in six minutes.
"
Dr. Bjorn Nordenstrom, of the Larolinska Institute, Sweden, has successfully used silver as a component in his cancer treatments for many years. Dr. Leonard Keene Hirschberg, A. M., M. D. (John Hopkins) states, "Speaking generally, the colloidal metals are especially remarkable for their beneficial action in infective states." Dr. Richard L. Davies, executive director of the Silver Institute, which monitors silver technology in 37 countries, reports: "In four years we've described 87 important new medical uses for silver. We're just beginning to see to what extent silver can relieve suffering.
"
Finally, Peter Lindemann reports in his 1997 article, Colloidal Silver, A Closer Look that a study conducted in part by the Institute of Microbiology in Rome, Italy and published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology (Dec. 1992), stated that "Pure electro-colloidal silver out- performed silver nitrate, silver chloride, and silver sulfadiazine as a broad spectrum germicide. For all classes of bacteria, fungus, and mold samples tested, pure electro-colloidal silver worked better, and at much lower concentrations. They concluded that any additives reduced the effectiveness of the pure silver ion; the silver salts being as much as 100 times less effective.
"
What is the FDA's standpoint on colloidal silver?
Since colloidal silver was in common use as an antibiotic prior to 1938 when the FDA was created, its use was grandfathered-in and not subject to FDA approval. Many promoters of colloidal silver had ballyhooed a 1991 letter authored by the FDA which they said (at the time) that they would not attempt to control colloidal silver as long as its uses were confined to pre 1938 published protocols. However, the growing popularity of colloidal since 1991, has created pressure from threatened pharmaceutical interests to get the FDA to regulate the availability of colloidal silver.[Update: Feb 2001 the FDA now claims jurisdiction over the sale of colloidal silver and will not allow any "medical claims" be made in association with the sale of colloidal silver.
]
As a result, today the FDA is attempting to subvert the grandfather clause and is seeking to gain approval status over the use and production of colloidal silver on the outrageous premise that since colloidal silver has proven to be such an effective broad spectrum germ fighter in its ability to cure new strains of bacteria (not in existence in 1938), that its use should be subject to their jurisdiction! It's clear to anyone who examines the subject, that the FDA is a champion for the pharmaceutical industry and on their behalf attempts to suppress the use of cheap, non-patentable, natural, alternative therapies at every opportunity. Silver, after all, is merely a metal. It's a harmless element of Nature.
What business does the FDA have in attempting to regulate its use?
Bill's comment: Make no mistake... Colloidal silver is a KILLING WEAPON, not a nutritional adjustment. I only use SOVEREIGN SILVER(www.natural-immunogenics.com) because I am confident that they are telling the truth about their product's safety, and because SUCH A TINY AMOUNT of product is so effective.
What is silver water or colloidal silver?
Colloidal Silver is a solution of extremely fine sub microscopic particles (.015 - .005 microns) of pure silver suspended in water by a positive electric charge on each particle. The particles remain suspended throughout the solution because these positive charged particles repel each other with a greater force than gravity can exert upon. A powerful germicidal, silver is an exceptional metal in that it is non-toxic to the human body, but lethal to over 650 disease causing bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, and molds; while conventional pharmaceutical antibiotics are typically effective against only 6 or 7 types of bacteria. Some new strains of bacteria classified as MDR (Multiple Drug Resistant) have proven to be resistant to all pharmaceutical antibiotics, but not to colloidal silver due to different germicidal mechanisms of deactivation.
How does colloidal silver work?
Richard Davies and Samuel Etris of The Silver Institute, in a 1996 monograph entitled The Development and Functions of Silver in Water Purification and Disease Control, discuss three mechanisms of deactivation that silver utilizes to incapacitate disease causing organisms. They are Catalytic Oxidation, Reaction with Cell Membranes, and Binding with the DNA of disease organisms to prevent unwinding.
Catalytic Oxidation:
Silver, in its atomic state, has the capacity to absorb oxygen and act as a catalyst to bring about oxidation. Atomic (nascent) oxygen absorbed onto the surface of silver ions in solution will readily react with the sulfhydryl (-S-H) groups surrounding the surface of bacteria or viruses to remove the hydrogen atoms (as water), causing the sulfur atoms to form an R-S-S-R bond; blocking respiration and causing the bacteria to expire. Employing a simple catalytic reduction/oxidation reaction, colloidal silver will react with any negative charge presented by the organism's transport or membrane proteins and deactivate them.
Reaction with Bacterial Cell Membranes:
There is evidence that silver ions attach to membrane surface radicals of bacteria, impairing cell respiration and blocking its energy transfer system. One explanation is based on the nature of enzyme construction: Specific enzymes are required for a given biochemical activity to take place. Enzyme molecules usually require a specific metallic atom as part of the molecular matrix in order to function. A metal of higher valance can replace a metal of lower valance in the enzyme complex, preventing the enzyme from functioning normally. Silver, with a valance of plus 2, can replace many metals with a lower, or equal valance that exhibit weaker atomic bonding properties.
Binding with DNA:
Studies by C.L. Fox and S.M. Modak with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a tenacious bacteria that is difficult to treat, demonstrated that as much as 12% of silver is taken up by the organism's DNA. While it remains unclear exactly how the silver binds to the DNA without destroying the hydrogen bonds holding the lattice together, it nevertheless prevents the DNA from unwinding, an essential step for cellular replication to occur.
How should one use colloidal silver?
Colloidal Silver may be taken orally or topically; applied directly to the skin. It can be used vaginally, anally, atomized or inhaled into the nose or lungs, and dropped into eyes. Liquid silver as well as new gel formulations, may be applied directly to the skin. A few drops on a Q-Tip or Band-Aid may be used to disinfect any wound or sore. Properly prepared, colloidal silver can also be injected into a muscle, a cancerous tumor, or into the bloodstream.
Dosage:
A extremely conservative approach would be to start with 1 or 3 teaspoons once or twice a day, however colloidal silver is not a posionous substance like drugs are and. therefore dosage is not critical-even for children. For colds and flu symptoms, one or two tablespoons 3-6 times daily frequently will speed recovery. Some individuals have reported drinking as much as 16 ozs in the morning and another 16 ozs in the late afternoon to knock down a cold or flu on the first day that symptoms start showing up. They claim that they have been able to completely abort the cold or flu on the first day of symptoms.
For mouth infections, frequently rinse the affected area for at least 6 minutes before swallowing. Overdosing should not be of concern, even if recommended doses are exceeded. If, after a few days of use, one experiences a de-toxification effect in the form of feeling sluggish or mild aches, increase water consumption to speed the elimination of toxins and taper back the silver dosage to match the rate of toxin elimination. It is safe for pregnant and nursing women and is known to aid the developing fetus in growth. It will not generate free radicals or interfere with enzyme activity. It has no reaction with other medications.
Are there any dangers or side effects?
The Environmental Protection Agency's Poison Control Center reports no toxicity listing for Colloidal Silver. Regular ingestion of colloidal silver can act as a second immune system by assisting the body in the war against invading micro-organisms. Unlike pharmaceutical antibiotic which destroy beneficial enzymes, colloidal silver leaves these tissue cell enzymes intact.
<
Colloidal Silver, if used sensibly, is completely non-toxic and will not harm the immune system in any way. Critics of colloidal silver will often warn that regular consumption of colloidal silver might lead to Argyria, a bluish/ gray discoloration of the skin. Dr. Bob Beck debunks this statement as a scare tactic by pro pharmaceutical interests. Dr Beck has indicated that Argyria is caused by silver compounds, such as silver nitrate, silver sulfate, silver sulfadiazine, etc., and not micro particles of pure elemental silver. Apparently, silver colloids are mostly absorbed in the upper gastrointestinal tract, since colloidal silver does not seem to adversely affect friendly bacteria in the lower intestines. Silver can be toxic to nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, but is normally prevented from entering those areas by the blood-brain barrier. Silver has not demonstrated any evidence of carcinogenic activity.
The body eliminates excess silver via the metallothiones. These ubiquitous proteins, first characterized in 1957, have the property of binding with heavy metals, such as silver, into metal-thiolate-cluster structures which aid in transportation, storage, and elimination of nonessential trace metals which enter the body.
How much research has been done on colloidal silver?
Silver has been used as a germicide for thousands of years. Ancient texts, including Pliny the Elder's great tome, Natural History, Book 23 (78 A.D.) discusses the extraordinary wound healing capacity of silver slag as an ingredient in plasters. The German obstetrician, Franz Crede, observed in 1884 that up to 79% of blind children in various orphanages and institutions were born to mothers who, at the time of the child's birth, had venereal disease. He found that a 1% solution of silver nitrate dropped into the eyes of newborns, reduced the incidence of VD caused blindness to less than 0.2%. In 1988, colloidal silver was tested at the UCLA Medical Laboratory.
The UCLA report stated that " The silver solutions were antibacterial for concentrations of 1 million organisms per ml of Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus [which in now resistant to Vancomycin, the strongest pharmaceutical antibiotic available] , Neisseria gonorrhea, Gardnerella Vaginalis, Salmonella Typhi [responsible for salmonella food poisoning and Typhus], and other enteric pathogens; and fungicidal for Candida albicans [the common yeast infection, in vaginitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome], Candida globata, and M. Furfur.
"
Dr Robert Becker, M.D., author of The Body Electric and Crosscurrents found that silver caused cells to dedifferentiate and re-differentiate in the process of regenerative healing.
" What we had actually done was rediscovered the fact that silver killed bacteria, which had been known for centuries...when antibiotics were discovered, clinical uses for silver as an antibiotic were discarded." Becker said in a 1995 interview with Bio/Tech News.
Dr Becker conducted extensive research into the healing properties of silver for many years at the Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. The experiments concluded that silver works on a wide range of bacteria, without any known side effects or damage to the cells of the body. Becker discovered that the silver was doing something more than just killing disease causing organisms: He said it was also causing major growth stimulation of injured tissues. Dr. Becker concluded that the presence of the silver ions may help to regenerate tissue, eliminate old or cancerous cells, and other diseased or abnormal tissue conditions.
Dr. Henry Crooks (author, Use of Colloids in Health Disease) found that silver in the colloidal state is highly germicidal, quite harmless to humans and absolutely non-toxic. From his bacteriological experiments with silver he concluded, "I know of no microbe that is not killed in laboratory experiments in six minutes.
"
Dr. Bjorn Nordenstrom, of the Larolinska Institute, Sweden, has successfully used silver as a component in his cancer treatments for many years. Dr. Leonard Keene Hirschberg, A. M., M. D. (John Hopkins) states, "Speaking generally, the colloidal metals are especially remarkable for their beneficial action in infective states." Dr. Richard L. Davies, executive director of the Silver Institute, which monitors silver technology in 37 countries, reports: "In four years we've described 87 important new medical uses for silver. We're just beginning to see to what extent silver can relieve suffering.
"
Finally, Peter Lindemann reports in his 1997 article, Colloidal Silver, A Closer Look that a study conducted in part by the Institute of Microbiology in Rome, Italy and published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology (Dec. 1992), stated that "Pure electro-colloidal silver out- performed silver nitrate, silver chloride, and silver sulfadiazine as a broad spectrum germicide. For all classes of bacteria, fungus, and mold samples tested, pure electro-colloidal silver worked better, and at much lower concentrations. They concluded that any additives reduced the effectiveness of the pure silver ion; the silver salts being as much as 100 times less effective.
"
What is the FDA's standpoint on colloidal silver?
Since colloidal silver was in common use as an antibiotic prior to 1938 when the FDA was created, its use was grandfathered-in and not subject to FDA approval. Many promoters of colloidal silver had ballyhooed a 1991 letter authored by the FDA which they said (at the time) that they would not attempt to control colloidal silver as long as its uses were confined to pre 1938 published protocols. However, the growing popularity of colloidal since 1991, has created pressure from threatened pharmaceutical interests to get the FDA to regulate the availability of colloidal silver.[Update: Feb 2001 the FDA now claims jurisdiction over the sale of colloidal silver and will not allow any "medical claims" be made in association with the sale of colloidal silver.
]
As a result, today the FDA is attempting to subvert the grandfather clause and is seeking to gain approval status over the use and production of colloidal silver on the outrageous premise that since colloidal silver has proven to be such an effective broad spectrum germ fighter in its ability to cure new strains of bacteria (not in existence in 1938), that its use should be subject to their jurisdiction! It's clear to anyone who examines the subject, that the FDA is a champion for the pharmaceutical industry and on their behalf attempts to suppress the use of cheap, non-patentable, natural, alternative therapies at every opportunity. Silver, after all, is merely a metal. It's a harmless element of Nature.
What business does the FDA have in attempting to regulate its use?
Bill's comment: Make no mistake... Colloidal silver is a KILLING WEAPON, not a nutritional adjustment. I only use SOVEREIGN SILVER(www.natural-immunogenics.com) because I am confident that they are telling the truth about their product's safety, and because SUCH A TINY AMOUNT of product is so effective.
What About Myanmar?
it seems that lots of media stars are jumping on the bandwagon about toppling the dictator of myanmar. the media is the main source of our american thoughts. it's the propaganda machine used to create what most of us think, to get us to support evil govt with our blood and money. aren't the actors and movie stars our heroes?
yup...they're also the puppets of the media conglomerates. the media conglomerates don't give a shit about you, the world, or people in the film industry. all big media is owned by oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, plastic and chemical companies and so on... you might say "come on, at least the actors THINK they're supporting a humanitarian cause... and following the trends is something they have to do to protect their paycheck..."
i don't support wars over OIL AND NATURAL GAS IN SMALL COUNTRIES. mark my words, the oil companies that own so much of OUR GOVT are going to topple that dictator, regardless of any other consequence... for the pipelines. and you, america, will support that move, because your heroes will endorse it. fuck that... none for me, thanks.
yup...they're also the puppets of the media conglomerates. the media conglomerates don't give a shit about you, the world, or people in the film industry. all big media is owned by oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, plastic and chemical companies and so on... you might say "come on, at least the actors THINK they're supporting a humanitarian cause... and following the trends is something they have to do to protect their paycheck..."
i don't support wars over OIL AND NATURAL GAS IN SMALL COUNTRIES. mark my words, the oil companies that own so much of OUR GOVT are going to topple that dictator, regardless of any other consequence... for the pipelines. and you, america, will support that move, because your heroes will endorse it. fuck that... none for me, thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)