Safe Breast Self Exam by Young
Women vs. Dangers of Mammography


Samuel S. EpsteinサミュエルS.エプスタイン

Cancer prevention expert, prof. emeritus at U. of IL School of Public Health, Chicago

Posted: August 5, 2009 03:16 PM

The routine practice of taking two films of each breast annually over 10 years, results in approximately 0.5 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure. This is about 500 times greater than exposure from a single chest X-ray, broadly focused on the entire chest rather than narrowly on the breast. Moreover, the premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation. Each rad exposure increases risks of breast cancer by about 1%, with a cumulative 5% increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening. So, a premenopausal woman having annual mammograms over 10 years is exposed to roughly 5 rads. This is the approximate level of radiation received by a Japanese woman a mile or so away from where the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atom bombs were exploded.

Mammography or mammogram: ママグラフィー若しくはマモグラフとは乳癌検診に使用される放射線を利用したレントゲンの様な技術若しくは機械です。

Radiation risks are increased by fourfold for the 1% to 2% of women who may be unknowing and 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% of all breast cancers diagnosed annually.

Of additional concern, missed cancers are common in premenopausal women due to the density of their breasts. Mammography also entails tight and often painful breast compression, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead to the rupture of small blood vessels in or around small undetected breast cancers, and the lethal distant spread of malignant cells.

That most breast cancers are first recognized by women themselves was even admitted as early as 1985 by the American Cancer Society (ACS), the world's largest "non-profit" organization. At least 90 percent of women who develop breast cancer discover the tumors themselves."
殆どの乳癌は先ず最初に女性自身によって気付かれる事は早くも1985年に世界最大のノンプロフィット団体であるアメリカン キャンサー ソサイティー米癌協会(ACS)によって認識されている。少なくとも90%の乳癌を発生した女性は彼女達自身で腫瘍を発見している。

-------------------the ACS is knee deep in conflicts of interest with the mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents and, in its every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. The mammography industry also conducts "research" for the ACS, to which it donates considerable funds. This blatant conflict of interest is hardly surprising. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the world's leading charity watchdog, warned in 1993 that the ACS is "more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives."

Not surprisingly, ACS promotion continues to lure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. An ACS communications director, questioned by journalist Kate Dempsey, admitted in an article published by the Massachusetts Women's Community's journal Cancer, "The ad isn't based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point . . . Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business."

Furthermore, an analysis of several 1993 studies showed that women who regularly performed monthly breast self-examination (BSE) detected their cancers much earlier than those who failed to do so. However, the ACS and radiologists still claim that "no studies have clearly shown any benefit of BSE."

Apart from the importance of self-empowering women, the costs of BSE are trivial compared to the inflationary impact of mammography. The estimated annual costs for screening pre- and post-menopausal women are in excess of $10 billion, equivalent to about 14 percent of Medicare spending on prescription drugs. Costs of digital mammography, enthusiastically supported by radiologists and the radiology industry, are approximately four-fold greater, even in the absence of any evidence for its improved effectiveness.

Medicareメディケア: アメリカの65歳以上に与えられている社会健康保険

Finally, and not surprisingly, premenopausal mammography is practiced by no nation other than the United States. ----------

ejnews: 今日は感謝祭でした。感謝祭とは英国からの企業による(英国で組織された営利目的の移民なのです)アメリカ移民達が食糧難に陥ったのを現地のアメリカ原住民に助けられ生き延びた事をお祝いする祝日ですが、原住民に助けられたにも拘らず彼等の土地を奪い虐殺し白人社会を拡大して行った米社会の始まりでもあり、感謝祭は白人国家としての米合衆国の其の後の行動の典型でもあるのです。感謝祭については2008年11月28日の“Thanksgiving感謝祭........................の歴史的事実。”と言うエントリーを参照してください。



にほんブログ村 海外生活ブログ アメリカ情報へ にほんブログ村 英語ブログ 時事英語へ にほんブログ村 英語ブログへ にほんブログ村 ニュースブログ 海外ニュースへ





Chronic widespread body pain is the primary symptom of fibromyalgia.
Most people with fibromyalgia also experience moderate to extreme
fatigue, sleep disturbances, sensitivity to touch, light, and sound, and
cognitive difficulties. Many individuals also experience a number of other symptoms and overlapping conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome,
lupus and arthritis.


Ejnews: 上記は線維筋痛症の簡単な説明です。ブログで妻の手術の事について語る心算は無かったのですが、若しかすると日本で同じ症状で苦しんでいられる人々の手助けになる可能性もあるので此処で妻の症状について説明させていただきます。
 彼女のgeneral practitioner or GPジェネラルプラクティショナー若しくはGPと呼ばれる医者(日本では一般開業医でしょうか?身体に変調をきたした時先ず最初に行く医者で、此の医者の判断でどの専門医に行くのか指示されるのです。)によると彼の線維筋痛症と診断されている患者の中で多くの人が実は首の関節に問題があり線維筋痛症と同じ様な、症状を見せていたとの事でした。





にほんブログ村 海外生活ブログ アメリカ情報へ にほんブログ村 英語ブログへ にほんブログ村 ニュースブログ 海外ニュースへ


Legal immunity set for swine flu
vaccine makers: What are the


AP Medical Writer Mike Stobbe got a swine flu vaccine scoop--yet the news is four weeks old. It turns out that DHHS Secretary Sibelius has not only given immunity to the makers of Tamiflu and Relenza for injuries stemming from their use against swine flu. She also granted immunity to future swine flu vaccines and "any associated adjuvants," which was published in the June 25, 2009 Federal Register. Here is the start of his story:

The last time the government embarked on a major vaccine campaign against a new swine flu, thousands filed claims contending they suffered side effects from the shots. This time, the government has already taken steps to head that off.


Vaccine makers and federal officials will be immune from lawsuits that result from any new swine flu vaccine, under a document signed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, government health officials said Friday.


Since the 1980s, the government has protected vaccine makers against lawsuits over the use of childhood vaccines. Instead, a federal court handles claims and decides who will be paid from a special fund.

The document signed by Sebelius last month grants immunity to those making a swine flu vaccine, under the provisions of a 2006 law for public health emergencies.

It allows for a compensation fund, if needed...
However, the compensation issue is more difficult than portrayed by Stobbe. The special vaccine court to which Stobbe refers applies only to specially designated vaccines, excludes most adult vaccines, and swine flu is not a designated vaccine for which compensation can be paid.

The 2006 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA) allows the DHHS Secretary to invoke almost complete immunity from liability for manufacturers of vaccines and drugs used to combat a declared public health emergency. PREPA removes the right to a jury trial for persons injured by a covered vaccine, unless a plaintiff can provide clear evidence of willful misconduct that resulted in death or serious physical injury, and gets permission to sue from the DHHS Secretary. There has been no government funding of its potential compensation mechanism, to date. Furthermore, a PREPA declaration explicitly shields "government program planners" who arranged for the liability waiver.

2006年パブリック レディーネス アンド イマジンシー プリペアードネス条例(2006年度公共危機管理、危機対応準備条例。略してPREPA)は保健社会福祉省局長が市民の健康に対する危機と宣言された病気に対して使われるワクチンや薬を生産した製薬会社に対する殆ど完全な法的責任の免除を与える事を許している。PREPAは原告が意図的違法行為が死亡や重症の原因となり、そして訴訟を起こす許可を保健社会福祉省長官から得ると言う確かな証拠の提出が出来なければ、ワクチンによる被害者から陪審員の参加している裁判を受ける権利を剥奪している。現在に至るまで予想される政府の払う賠償金制度は準備されていない。其れに加えてPREPAの宣言書は此の支払い責任削除を仕組んだ政府のプログラム制作者を明確に保護している。

Pharmaceutical companies making swine flu vaccine today may have demanded immunity from liability before agreeing to begin a crash program to manufacture H1N1 vaccine for the government. According to a 1978 report by the National Academy of Sciences, something similar happened with the 1976 swine flu program:

現在豚インフルエンザワクチンを作る製薬会社はH1N1ワクチンを政府の為に製造する緊急プログラムに同意する前に賠償責任からの保護を要求したのかも知れない。1978年のナショナル アカデミー オブ サイエンスの報告によると1976年の豚インフルエンザワクチン プログラムに起こった同様な事が起こったと言う事である。
... all manufacturers made plain that they would not insure themselves, not even temporarily. Instead they put off plans to bottle their vaccine; pending legislation they would keep the stuff in bulk. Each week’s delay in moving from bulk to bottles assured at least as much delay in starting inoculations. Thus ended hopes of immunizing anybody in July or even August...

Behind Merrell’s firmness, there almost certainly was fear of the intentions of the casualty insurers. In May it was no secret that at least some major firms wanted to steer clear of swine vaccine. As early as April 8 Merck had been warned by its primary insurer that coverage for swine vaccine was “considered” not “feasible … at virtually any price.” So Merck's President had written Mathews and everyone else in sight.

Merrell, then about to switch insurers (for unrelated reasons) is reported to have been told by its new one something of the same sort at about the same time. We do not know precisely what was made of this, where in Merrell’s management. We do know that the issue was reviewed again, in June, by the insurer with the same result, a “no.” But we assume that Merrell’s counsel knew in May what the insurer had already warned in April. However that may be, it shortly would turn out that all insurers saw the swine flu program much alike: not for them.

Here is the problem: once the PREP Act is invoked to shield manufacturers from liability, the pharmaceutical firms have no financial incentive to make the safest product, and have a negative incentive to test it for safety. As long as they do not deliberately harm consumers of the product, they will not be liable for damages.


Are you following this argument closely? In order to avoid having prior knowledge of possible harm to users of the product, for which they could be found liable, it is in the manufacturers' best interest to know as little as possible about adverse reactions caused by their product.


Thus manufacturers can be expected to perform minimal testing, as they have been incentivized by PREPA to avoid learning of potential harms related to their product. The rush to manufacture and administer new vaccines serves two purposes: it provides an excuse to avoid adequate testing, as well as providing rapid vaccine availability. For example, see this Bloomberg article, "Glaxo to Limit Tests of Flu Vaccine, Citing Urgency."


On the other hand, France, which has ordered vaccines from Sanofi, Glaxo and Novartis AG, sees no reason at this point to ask vaccine makers to shorten or skip clinical trials, Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot-Narquin said at a news conference.

一方でSanofi, Glaxo Novartis AG,等にワクチンを注文したフランスでは、現時点でワクチン製造業者に臨床実験を短縮したり排除したりする根拠は見当たらないと健康保健省大臣ロザリン バシェロ-ナルキンはニュースコンファレンスで述べている。

It is worthwhile to go back and consider the reason for passing PREPA in 2006: fear of an avian flu pandemic, in the event the avian flu virus mutated to enable person-to-person spread. Avian flu then had a 70% death rate. Faced with such a potentially devastating disease, it perhaps made sense to create legislation to permit rapid deployment of drugs and vaccines without adequate testing, and issue a liability shield for those involved in the process.


But the H1N1 flu has only caused 302 US deaths though CDC over one million Americans had been infected. Instead of 70%, H1N1's death rate is under 0.03%. Therefore, this virus in no way justifies the risks the population is being asked to take: receiving vaccines, and perhaps experimental adjuvants, which their manufacturers have been encouraged not to test, with no prospect of compensation for illness or death that might result.


Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 11:43 AM

ejnews: 最近一寸色々ありましてニュースの翻訳をする時間が取れなくなっています。私がアメリカに漂着したのはコロンブスが新大陸を発見したと主張した数年後でありまして..............................冗談です。


にほんブログ村 海外生活ブログ アメリカ情報へ にほんブログ村 英語ブログ 時事英語へ にほんブログ村 英語ブログへ にほんブログ村 ニュースブログ 海外ニュースへ


Women Have More Diverse Hand
Bacteria Than Men


ScienceDaily (Nov. 4, 2008) ― A new University of Colorado at Boulder study indicates that not only do human hands harbor far higher numbers of bacteria species than previously believed, women have a significantly greater diversity of microbes on their palms than men.

サイエンスデイリー(Nov. 4, 2008)ボールダー市のコロラド大学での新しい研究は人間の手は今まで信じられていたよりも遥かに多くのバクテリアの種類を潜ましていて、男性と比較すると女性は彼女達の手の平に特筆すべき程多くの種類の微生物を持っている。
The results have implications for better understanding human bacteria and should help establish a "healthy baseline" to detect microbial community differences on individuals that are associated with a wide variety of human diseases, said CU-Boulder Assistant Professor Noah Fierer, lead study author. A paper on the subject by the CU-Boulder researchers was published online Nov. 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Using powerful gene sequencing techniques, the team found a typical hand in the new study had roughly 150 different species of bacteria living on it, said Fierer of CU-Boulder's ecology and evolutionary biology department. While the researchers detected and identified more than 4,700 different bacteria species across 102 human hands in the study, only five species were shared among all 51 participants.


"The sheer number of bacteria species detected on the hands of the study participants was a big surprise, and so was the greater diversity of bacteria we found on the hands of women," said Fierer. The study also showed that the diversity of bacteria on individual hands was not significantly affected by regular hand washing, he said.


The 332,000 gene sequences obtained by the CU team were nearly 100 times greater than those obtained from other studies of skin bacteria also obtained by sampling the entire DNA of microbe communities, known as "metagenomics." The new CU-Boulder study also confirms that standard skin culturing of human skin bacteria, a technique used by many labs, dramatically underestimates the full extent of microbial diversity, Fierer said.


Co-authors on the PNAS study included Micah Hamady of CU-Boulder's computer science department, Christian Lauber of CU-Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and CU-Boulder chemistry and biochemistry Assistant Professor Rob Knight. The study was funded primarily by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

PNAS研究の共同著者は、コロラド大学ボールダーのコンピューター科学部のミカ ハマディー、コロラド大学ボールダーの環境科学共同研究所のクリスチャン ローバー、コロラド大学ボールダーの科学学部と生物化学部の助教授ロブ ナイツの各氏を含んでいる。この研究はthe National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundationによって研究費が主に提供されている。

Fierer speculated that skin pH may play a role in the higher bacterial diversity on women's hands, since men generally have more acidic skin, and other research has shown microbes are less diverse in more acidic environments. The findings also could be due to differences in sweat and oil gland production between men and women, the frequency of moisturizer or cosmetics applications, skin thickness or hormone production, he said.


The right and left palms of the same individual shared an average of only 17 percent of the same bacteria types, said Knight. Study volunteers, all CU undergraduates, shared an average of only 13 percent of bacteria species with each other, he said.


Although the composition of bacterial communities on dominant and non-dominant hands of subjects was significantly different, diversity levels were similar, Fierer said. The differences found between dominant and non-dominant hands were likely due to environmental conditions like oil production, salinity, moisture or variable environmental surfaces touched by either hand of an individual, he said.


While some groups of bacteria were less abundant following hand washing, others were more abundant, said Knight, who stressed that regular hand washing with anti-bacterial soap is beneficial. "The vast majority of bacteria are non-pathogenic, and some bacteria even protect against the spread of pathogens," Knight said. "From a public health standpoint, regular hand washing has a very positive effect."


"Although hand washing altered community composition, overall levels of bacterial diversity were unrelated to the time since the last hand washing," wrote the researchers in PNAS. "Either the bacterial colonies rapidly re-establish after hand washing, or washing (as practiced by the students included in this study) does not remove the majority of bacteria taxa found on the skin surface."


The CU-Boulder team used the metagenomic survey to simultaneously analyze all of the bacteria on a given palm surface, said Knight. In simple terms, the effort involved isolating and amplifying tiny bits of microbial DNA, then building complementary DNA strands with a high-powered sequencing machine that allowed the team to identify different families, genera and species of bacteria from the sample.


Knight recently received a $1.1 million NIH grant to develop new computational tools to better understand the composition and dynamics of microbial communities. He has been developing novel methods to tag DNA samples with error-correcting "barcodes" to obtain more accurate sequencing data.


The richness of bacteria types on the palm was three times higher than that found on the forearm and elbow, according to the researchers. The total diversity of hand bacteria appears to match or exceed levels of bacteria colonizing other parts of the body, including the esophagus, the mouth and lower intestine, Fierer said.


"I view humans as 'continents' of microscopic ecological zones with the kind of diversity comparable to deep oceans or tropical jungles," Fierer said. "Today we have the ability to answer large-scale questions about these complex microbial communities and their implications for human health that we weren't even asking six months or a year ago."


Ejnews:アメリカでは女の子にDon’t touch boys. They have coodies.『男の子に触っちゃだめよ!黴菌を持っているから。』と言って聞かすそうです。然し、其れは事実を隠蔽する為の女達の陰謀だった事が此処に科学的証明されたのだった!ワハハハハハハハハハハ!






にほんブログ村 海外生活ブログ アメリカ情報へ にほんブログ村 英語ブログ 時事英語へ にほんブログ村 英語ブログへ にほんブログ村 ニュースブログ 海外ニュースへ