New Rule: Bill Maher Questions Vaccinations
Children’s Hospital of Boston: Is Autism Really On the Rise?

Doctors Discussing Risks and Benefits of Mammography

Trust fall By Kim Stagliano

Yesterday, surprising (and controversial) new guidelines emerged regarding mammography, stating that women under the age of 50 may not need yearly mammograms, as is the current the medical recommendation. I read the article (below) in the New York Times and made note that the argument for continued routine screening is that no one wants to play the risk odds. Understandably. And also that doctors feel that if they don't present both sides of the risk/benefit analysis, their patients will not trust them. When Americans become sick after vaccination, we're patted on the back for "protecting the herd" (or called outright liars) and doctors who present "both sides" are skewered in the press.  Are vaccinations medicine or religion?

Read the full article in the New York Times HERE.

...Several doctors said that while they understood the panel’s risk-benefit analysis, their patients would not see it that way. “My patients tell me they can live with a little anxiety and distress but they can’t live with a little cancer,” said Dr. Carolyn Runowicz, director of the Neag Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Connecticut.

The idea that one cancer death is prevented for roughly 2,000 women screened “doesn’t mean anything until you’re the one,” said Dr. Jacques Moritz, director of gynecology at Roosevelt Hospital in Manhattan. “No doubt about it, I’m going to say, ‘Well, you really don’t need it,’ and they’re going to say: ‘You don’t understand. I’m getting the mammogram. I’m not going to take the chance to be the one person that has it.’ ”

Most of the doctors, however, said they would inform younger women that the recommendations said they did not need mammograms if they were low-risk. They said they would also point out that groups like the American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are sticking to the earlier guidelines.

“If we don’t give them both views, they will not trust our judgments,” said Dr. Ozgul Muneyyirci-Delale, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at SUNY Downstate. Dr. Muneyyirci-Delale said she worried that the conflicting advice might add to negative feelings many women have about mammograms, because of the pain of the test, exposure to radiation or a general distrust of medicine...

Kim Stagliano is Managing Editor for Age of Autism.


Luke Tunyich

According the study done by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer
“Women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer (in their study, n=2056 for the cancer group and n=2674 for the standard group).”

“Women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed had a 1 out of 7 risk.”
“Women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 152 risk.”
“Women who wore bras rarely or never had a 1 out of 168 chance of getting breast cancer. The overall difference between 24 hour wearing and not at all was a 125-fold difference.”

Breast cancer is the only that show decline in the prevalence and that can be only attributed to the research and discovery done by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer.
On the other side their research is ignored by Brest cancer professionals and breast cancer industry.
Much more people will be saved from breast cancer if responsible medical officials stop to ignore the Singer and Grismaijer discovery.

Kathy Blanco

Preventative measures for breast cancer should be the argument here...less mercury, more iodine in our diets and or through supplements, D3, and a host of nutrients protect the breast. Also we eat so badly these days, one cannot be estrogen dominant (such as cows milk with hormones in it). That said, I was just told this morning they found a retrovirus in breast tissue, which goes back to this finding in XMRV. Which goes back to the finding from my friend Dawn on Vactruth, that retroviruses are animal viruses and are oncogenic and are known to cause neurological disorders in animals. And should anyone qustion where that comes from, one needs to not to look any farther than the growth medium they make for vaccines, monkey, dog, horse, mouse...and humans. Could breast cancer also be a vaccine injury, a delayed slow insidious virus in the body? After all, they see also HPV in there too? (not to condone the vaccine, just that they see it). Also, there are some talk that breast cancer could be caused by birth control pills/birth control methods. So there you go...

For me, I have only done one mammogram in my life when I was a sheeple, and then I found out why that was a bad idea. I get thermography exams now. OH, and the other one, obesity...another risk factor. And I think most of our food supply supports cancer too...

Clean up the world, and we may clean up cancers, and autism, that's my most favored wish. Both have affected my family way too much.

Melissa T.

As a Certified Radiographer/X-ray (RT) and Computed Tomography (CT) technologist, and who has done a fair share of mammograms during my working career, I want to make sure everyone realizes there is an extremely HIGH dose of radiation exposure with mammograms. I personally have had a yearly mammogram done twice before reconsidering and no longer doing this particular 'preventative' step to breast cancer. The idea of continued radiation to this area of my body with HIGH doses of radiation per image that is received during the procedure,(a woman might have at least 3 images done per breast dependent upon their breast size in an appointment), I would be exposing myself to a HUGE accumulative amount of radiation and not only to my breast tissue, but to my whole body!

Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen (the father of x-ray) radiated his wife's hand multiple times, (grant you this was a crude x-ray tube without shielding), she was diagnosed with carcinoma of the intestine and died. I must remind everyone not only is the actual exposed part of the body being radiated, but the scatter radiation that is produced from that exposed area with each x-ray exposure enters any given part of the body, and destroys cells!

Some of you might/might not remember when many of the shoe stores use to have a small x-ray machines in their fitting areas. They were operated by the shoe salesman to help fit the customer with the proper proper fitting shoe! (I personally do not remember this, but I do remember being taught this during the history portion of my x-ray education!) This practice was obviously BAND, they realized that this was too dangerous to the public health and safety.

X-ray exposure in any amount is harmful to the cells of the body. You just never know when an x-ray might tweak a cell and change it into the precancerous or worse, cancerous state! You could compare this to playing 'Russian roulette' and the same goes with getting vaccines. One never knows when the toxic tipping point will be met for their body/their child's body. Some it's prior to birth through the toxins delivered to them via mommy's blood, others...immediately after their first,second, third round of childhood vaccines, and for others it's a delayed reaction of the accumulative effect of the toxins that have built up in their body. One NEVER knows! We are all unique, and it certainly is no different with the x-ray exposure. I no longer work in the actual field of x-ray, but I know I have had so much exposure from scatter radiation/background radiation in my 15 years of working in the profession to last me a lifetime!

With EVERYTHING that anyone might apply/ingest/inject into their body or have done, there are ALWAYS risks involved. This is certainly a personal decision that everyone must decide for themselves, and I hope your decisions is made only after doing extensive research and weighing both sides! Those of us who had put our trust in the medical community and trusted what they said when it came to the well-fair/well-being of our babies have unfortunately learned the hard way, NEVER trust what the propaganda machine perpetuates...especially when there is money to be made!

We who work or have worked in the field of x-ray have been trained throughout our schooling (brain washed)to believe that the amount of x-rays in a Chest x-ray is no different than the background radiation we receive from daily exposure from the sun! Of course, this would be taught to us so we would not worry for our own safety while working in the profession! On occasion, an x-ray tech must assist a patient throughout an x-ray procedure and be required to stand in the room (yes, with a lead apron, that does not cover the thyroid, eyes, arms, legs and most importantly does not cover the head/brain!), to help hold or assist the patient with the part being radiated! I now feel I had been given a false sense of security with the education I received throughout my radiology training and education.

For me personally...NO MORE radiation from mammograms!


Breast cancer for women is becoming the new normal as autism is becoming the new normal for children. Does anyone see the bigger picture here? We're killing ourselves.
Melodrama and a cup of coffee, plz.


Add me to the camp that is wary of radiation exposure every year. I kind of wonder if that could be the 900 lb. gorilla in the room that that this task force isn't speaking of. Could this new recommendation about mammograms be akin to the 2001 recommendation to remove thimerosal from vaccines? Perhaps they have information that mammograms are actually contributing to breast cancer, but they don't want to cause a mass panic?

Craig Willoughby


I nominate you for the best comment of the week. Excellent post.

Angela Warner

Funny this would come up on AoA, but not so much. Calling out the TRUTH in supposed medicine again! YAY!!! That's what we do here.

My paternal grandmother died of breast cancer about a year before I was born. My youngest daughter carries her name as ner middle name.

My aunt (that Grandmother's daughter who is my deceased dad's sister) had something... well she is and has been an elected official in her county for years. One or both removed, who knows?

I know I've researched this and it can pass maternally or paternally (which it would in this case) and I don't give a shit. Give me my mammogram. I just turned 40 and I am at risk.

Remember Katie when her husband died and she got the whole colonoscopy thing going? Live on TV!!! Next thing you know... well... that will be next. Oh, those men, and women don't need it until they're 50 or 60 (respectively).

Mammograms are preventative, and are not invasive, as vaccines are.

SCHUPID. Thank God I have little breasts, and I'm being serious here. If they take this away in the Bill because of this, it's gonna put alot of women at risk who wouldn't otherwise be. And again I'm being serious, my little boobs are a hell of alot easier to do the monthly exam on than bigger ones. I've had both. My kids sucked the big out of them.

I am not kidding and this is not funny. Look at what happened to Christina Applegate. Her doc had suspicions and referred her. She's in her mid to late 30's for crying out loud.

That's preventative medicine truly at it's finest.

Vaccines are not. Ooops - sorry to end with that.


Not related to mammograms, but related to the evaluation of risks of treatments, I recently heard an interesting story on NPR news (which, as most of you reading this know, has been reporting only the CDC spin on vaccines). The story was about treatments for AIDS. Apparently some of the people who have been on drugs for AIDS for many years are now suffering from certain problems. An excerpt:
“David France, a contributing editor at New York Magazine, was motivated to write a story on AIDS-related aging after noticing that a number of his friends with the disease were having what he describes as cognitive issues.

“’[They were] forgetting things, forgetting appointments, forgetting whole conversations,’ France told NPR’s Steve Inskeep.

“Researchers are finding that patients who live longer with AIDS also begin to suffer from osteoporosis, various forms of cancer, kidney disease and cardiovascular disease.”



When I was reading this story, I was imagining if this story were told from the same point of view as so many vaccine stories, and I imagined this:

person A: “We are finding that many people who have been on drugs to combat AIDS are suffering from certain health conditions and cognitive issues.”

person B: “It’s just a coincidence! Many people who are not on AIDS drugs have cognitive issues, osteoporosis, cancer, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, and premature aging!”

A: “Well, I’ve noticed much more of this in my friends who have been on these drugs for years than in my other friends who were not on these drugs.”

B: “That’s anecdotal! You don’t understand science! You’re not a doctor! Probably a lot of your friends have those problems but you just don’t notice them! Show me proof, and I mean proof in a respected peer reviewed published journal!”

A: “Well, I don’t have proof, and I’m not a scientist, and I don’t have a million dollars to fund a study. But this seems to me to be worth further study. Isn’t this why our tax dollars go to agencies such as the CDC and FDA? Do they only fund research on what has already been proven in studies funded by those affected by the health condition?”

B: “Medicine is good! AIDS is bad! If you say bad things about these medicines people won’t take them and then they’ll die!!”

A: “Well, I’m not saying that everyone should stop taking their meds, but shouldn’t we understand the potential side effects? Maybe there is a way to prevent these side effects, such as better meds or different dosage. Maybe there are nutritional supplements that could help ameliorate the side effects.”

B: “Medicines are good! AIDS is bad! You don’t understand science! You will be responsible for causing death! Medicine good! AIDS bad! Don’t even talk about this anymore!”


Fortunately this kind of ridiculous illogical thinking is not generally applied to most health issues, such as the side effects of AIDS medications. I don’t know why this kind of ridiculous illogical thinking is so often applied to the issue of vaccine safety concerns. Shouldn't NPR news be at least as concerned about the potential side effects of vaccines given to healthy babies who may never come down with the diseases in question as they are about medicines to treat people who have already contracted a deadly virus?

michael framson

Catie Couric interviewed Kathleen Sebelius, pretty extensively on the new mammography recommendations.;cbsCarousel

(It's too bad Catie can't seem to do that with someone from the AoA authors, but I guess Catie has a personal stake in this issue as opposed to having a child with ASD)

What I found interesting was this comment from Sebelius:

SEBELIUS: ....."every bodies health history is different, everyone's body type and family history is different, and those become the critical factors when your looking for breast cancer."

Wait a second, doesn't this imply that "one size 'does' not fit all"?

Lets see, health history, body type and family history is relevant for mammography, but health history, body type and family history is irrelevant for......what's that inherently dangerous medical procedure done to children? Someone remind me.

Someone needs to call Sebelius or Catie Couric, because I think this could be really important.

Mayer Eisenstein MD, JD, MPH

Mammogram? Or should we say Mammoscam?

The new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, state that

routine mammograms aren't necessary for women of average cancer risk in their 40s,

In January 1997 the National Institute of Health held a consensus conference on the value of screening mammography for premenopausal women. After listening to the scientific presentations, the Committee decided that the scientific evidence did not support the notion that premenopausal women (age 40-49) should have screening mammography.

Despite the findings of the consensus Committee, two months later in March 1997, President Clinton appointed a new political panel of physicians to review the scientific literature on screening mammography for premenopausal women. Not surprisingly, the political panel of physicians recommended that premenopausal women should have mammogram screening on a yearly basis. If the NIH consensus panel had concluded that mammogram screening was valuable for premenopausal women, would President Clinton have appointed a new panel to review their findings? The principle is simple. If the scientific evidence shows that a medical procedure does not work, recommend more studies. If the scientific evidence shows that a medical procedure works, stop the studies and do the procedure.

The scientific evidence shows that this procedure has no scientific basis and in some instances is even harmful; yet, it is still recommended, taught and used.


The answers to the serious problem of breast cancer in premenopausal women are not found in screening mammograms. The answers lie in avoiding the birth control pill, avoiding hormone replacement therapy, avoiding radiation, breastfeeding your babies and getting your Vitamin D level above 60ng/ml. The epidemic of breast cancer is real, but let's focus on the causes rather than on palliative treatments which do not work!!

Special Webinar -- Breaking News - "Low Vitamin D May Be Root Cause of Cancer "

Hosted by Dr. Mayer Eisenstein
View archive


Mammograms starting at age 40 even for those who are considered low/no risk are NOT always "totally worthless"! My first ever, just-because-I-turned-40 mammogram turned up two lumps, one in each breast (bookends- lol). They were NOT visible on the ultrasound, and they were not felt by my gynecologist a month or so earlier OR my surgeon just prior to surgery (while looking at them on the mammogram!)

Guess what? One was benign...but one was NOT! I have zero history of breast cancer in my family. If I hadn't gone for that routine mammo, who knows when they might have been found....and what they might have looked like b/c they grow fast in women of this age.

So maybe this is anecdotal, maybe this is an exception, maybe this is the "one in a million", but guess what? When it happens to YOU, ratios don't exactly dominate the thoughts running through your head.

Once again, people need to hear all sides and make their OWN decisions- and insurance should just stay the &*#) out of it with the "musts"- you must do this, you must not do that, or we won't pay...BLAH BLAH BLAH.

As someone else said above, "Choices people, choices."


Anonmous; we all here know about ancedotal evidence. I am so sorry you had this at a young age.
So as usual I am confused. According to Lisa and this government panel you do not have to be grieved that you did not get your breast exams, they might not have caught it anyway. Not only that but year after year of mamomgram radiation could cause a woman to have breast cancer. I guess I am right on this??? I still don't know what to think.
I know this though, and I wonder about the other daughters on this website, but when my daughter reached puberty her period would not stop. I can not help but think that it is very much related to Kawasaki's and an on going inflammatory disease. She has never been off the pill since she was 15 and I do not see her ever going off of it. I believe she would bleed to death if not for the pill. I wonder is these pills she is taking now was produced by the Connaught drug company - same company that produced my children's DPT vaccine. How ever interwoven it is into other, newer, bigger, better drug companies of today I would hate to be purchasing this hormone pill off of them.


I think that those of us in the autism community should see this remarkable about-face on mammography as FANTASTIC NEWS! What a complete paradigm shift this is!!! I took a look at the research that this panel looked at, and in a nutshell, there are so many false positives that this test is no better than lining women up in a row and randomly throwing darts at them, then saying that the ones who caught the darts with their boobs likely have breast cancer. That is how truly worthless this screening device is. While the panel did not come right out and say it, this is indeed what the research indicates. What is needed is not for women to start ignoring their breast health, but for scientists to come up with an effective screening device (and also for women to stop popping synthetic, cancer-causing hormones and birth control pills like candy!) I for one feel heartened by the fact that somebody is actually starting to look at the data on at least one sacred cow - mammography -- and tell people the truth. Who knows? It could be the beginning of a true renaissance in modern medicine.


There is, in fact, a much less dangerous, more effective screening mechanism for breast health. It's called Thermography Mammogram. For more information, see Dr. Tenpenny's website at


Not related to autism, but here is my breast cancer story. 6 years ago I felt a lump in my breast and got a mammogram. Turns out I had not one but four lumps in my breast as well as cancer in multiple lymph nodes. With an excellent surgeon, 8 months of chemo, and extensive radiation, I am alive today. But it would have been much better to catch the cancer ealier.

I felt like an idiot because it had been 12 years since I got my baseline mammogram at the age of 35. I kept meaning to get another one but was so busy with my small children and job. I remember once I thought I could get a mammogram during my son's OT appointment at the same hospital, but they said no because the mammogram would take longer than the OT appointment.

So at the age of 47 I underwent treatment for pretty advanced breast cancer instead of catching it earlier.

This doesn't relate to the general subject but is my two cents, my experience, just "anecdotal" as they say, regarding mammograms after age 40...


I saw this same article yesterday on CNN's website, and in it they say:

"The task force is composed of 16 health care experts, none of whom are oncologists. The group reviews medical data and bases recommendations on effectiveness and risks involved."

Note sarcasm: Well that makes perfect sense!

Ted Van Oosbree

Scientific or medical paradigms are quasi-religious in that they are deeply integrated into the psyches of scientists and medical professionals. Any challenge to the established paradigms is thus a personal challenge to those who believe in them. Note that such attitudes are not "scientific" in the sense laymen understand the term (everything open to enquiry, no dogmas). The late Dr. Bernard Rimland had an excellent analogy for such thinking: its practitioners think of science as a brick wall where one builds on a firm foundation of established facts and adds established facts to strengthen the wall. In reality, science is more like working a giant crossword puzzle in which new discoveries cause one to go back and erase old ideas. Those who care more for preserving their illusion of omniscience than for discovering truth are the enemies of science.


News gives both sides of the issues.
It is bad when both sides have truths and lies in them.
It is also bad when I can not tell which is the truth and which is the lie even after hearing both sides.
What is a person to do.
You can't research it, you just get more of the same of what you heard on the news.

That is what our little young mothers are up againest now a days when they are trying to figure out what vaccines to get and what not to get. Even then they are having to cross their fingers, hold their breath, pray to God that this vaccine will not cause an inflammation reaction in their child's blood vessels that will last a life time. God bless their hearts, someone should care enough to spend every cent of the tax payer's money in research on the processes that causes the immune system to interfere in the mitochondria energy cycle/ or what in the vaccines causes the interference and why.

Robin Nemeth

“If we don’t give them both views, they will not trust our judgments,”-- Dr. Ozgul Muneyyirci-Delale

Lol, I swear every time I turn on my telly or radio or pick up a newspaper anymore, all I see or hear or read is people expounding about their competing views on what the proper course of action is for my health care. If it’s not the commercials, it’s the ‘news’ content itself. This incessant insistence by the media that I spend every waking moment contemplating my health is making me nuts. And I’m told I fixate about vaccines! I can’t take it anymore, I just have to keep my television and radio off all the time now.

Yesterday I heard some Doctor or health care expert on my television mention that the rates of gastro-intestinal problems seem to be up. He blamed it on stress! Ahahah.

This morning I turned on the television and they showed Santa with a little toddler on his lap, and the voice-over was telling us all how important it was to get our vaccines. I mean heck, if you can’t trust Santa, who can you trust?


This is crazy!! There is certainly a risk to mammogram with the use of a lower radiation than most radiology imaging that is actually more dangerous for teh risk of cancer....BUT, if you don't look, you won't find it either. I see many young woman with cancer where I work. They, like our children, are NOT expendable. What made me more sick then the change in the timeline was the choice of these individuals to go further and add that womaen do not need to do self breast exams. Every day women find their cancers this way. Or their husbands find them this way lol...but whichever doesn't matter...they are found.
This is bone chilling and says a lot about who doesn't care about us!!!!!
And you can bet than there will be no such statement about a mans prostate exam or PSA bloodwork!!

Nonna C

I see this as yet another crack in the medical community's preventative medicine bag of tricks......vaccines are a stand out in this regard and people are beginning to question all of it. You have to judge each protocol's risks and benefits and make an informed decision for more herd mentality! Choices people, choices.

Nonna C

Radiating my boobs on an annual basis just doesn't make sense to me, especially with no family history. That being said, I do support a more benign screening method. Ultrasound screenings, perhaps. We should be able to come up with something, don't you think?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)