Video Transcript: Do Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Lead to Over-Diagnosis?
Ty Bollinger: Early detection is your best protection.
Sayer Ji: Exactly. They even equated this meme with prevention when in fact you’re exposing your breast to a type of radiation that is actually known to have a higher risk of causing cancer in the breast. Especially if you have the BRCA1 and 2 gene mutations that everyone is so concerned about. Because they make it harder for you to damage, to radiate, to protect yourself from radiation-induced damage.
Over-diagnosis, according to a recent study done in The New England Journal of Medicine, over the past 30 years in United States resulted in 1.3 million women being diagnosed with early stage breast cancer that technically never had any type of cancer that would cause harm. This is called ductal carcinoma in situ or stage zero cancer, which they equated with actual cancer which now we know is not.
So what that basically meant is that they would give them the standard mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation with chemotherapy. Things like tamoxifen, and then follow up hormone-suppressing therapies like Arimidex.
So basically, what we’re dealing with here is kind of a medical holocaust of sorts. Because those women now had to deal with being diagnosed with a cancer they didn’t have, being treated for it, having the stigma, and all the psycho-spiritual emotional stress that’s caused by that. And then, statistically, the industry told them that they saved their lives when in fact, quite the opposite had happened. So they identify with the aggressor like a Stockholm syndrome.
Millions of people march in these breast cancer awareness marches not realizing that it’s funded by the very corporations that make money off the drugs used to treat breast cancer. We’re talking about AstraZeneca which actually is a derivative of Imperial Chemical Industries who started breast cancer awareness month in the 80s and has the patent or had the patent for tamoxifen and Arimidex.
So it’s a vicious circle of brainwashing and it’s used to cover up, really, what has cost the lives, I think, of hundreds of thousands of women ultimately.
Ty Bollinger: That’s really fascinating information. It’s really shocking. It’s really sad that we’ve had so many women that potentially have been diagnosed with cancer and have gone through all of these toxic treatments. Potentially even died from the treatments, that never even had cancer to start with.
Sayer Ji: Absolutely. Over-diagnosis is basically causing inflation of the success in terms of what the industry says they’re doing. Because of what’s called lead time bias. Which is, if you diagnosed something early that would never progress to cause harm in the patient — and surely not take their life — it appears as if, according to statistics, you’ve saved their life because you have this [additional] time when you diagnosed the cancer from when it would have caused the symptom later.
Ultimately, the mortality statistics remain the same, meaning they don’t live longer because you’ve done that. Lead-time bias is also related to length-time bias which is that when you do these sorts of screenings, you’re going to actually detect the slow-growing cancers before you are the fast-growing.
It’s a statistical fact that fast-growing cancers which are the ones that are malignant are not going to be picked up as fast or as accurately as the slow-growing non-malignant ones. These two factors lead to ultimately higher mortality than those who subject themselves to breast cancer screening. That’s actually the reality. You look at all the trials and it now says that women who do this preventatively to detect it early are actually probably going to end up dying of breast cancer sooner than those who do not.
Ty Bollinger: You know I’ve read that. I’ve also read that you mentioned the fact that mammography actually increases breast cancer risk.
Sayer Ji: Yes.
Ty Bollinger: That’s amazing because the fact that women are urged—this documentary will be airing on October, breast cancer awareness month—and when they are urged to get the mammogram and it’s actually an ionizing radiation. And studies have shown over and over, it [mammograms] actually increases the risk of cancer.
Sayer Ji: Yes. Not only that, what they found is exact type of wavelength that is used. It is actually five to six times more carcinogenic than high energy radiation which is how they look at radiological risk today as compared radiation in mammography to the kind released during the Hiroshima event which was based on external exposure of a different wavelength.
And because wavelengths are technically of lower energy but higher carcinogenicity, higher toxicity, it actually causes more radiation-induced breast cancer than letting people know. So the risk of screening is five to six higher than what women are being told.