Should We Trust Health Authorities?
“The golden ages, when we believed in fantasies and we trusted the wizard behind the curtain, seems like an eternity.”
In an era marked by record low confidence in almost all institutions, the question of whether we should trust what health authorities say is becoming more and more valid. While health authorities are entrusted with the critical task of protecting public health, skepticism about their guidance is not unjustified. The erosion of trust in institutions, fueled by a variety of factors including political polarization and the rapid spread of information on social media, has left many questioning the motives and reliability of these authorities. It is essential to strike a balance between holding health authorities accountable and recognizing the importance of their expertise in addressing health crises. Transparency, clear communication, and a commitment to evidence-based decision-making are crucial in rebuilding public trust and ensuring that the guidance provided by health authorities is indeed in the best interest of the public. But is it really?
According to an article written by Megan Brooks from Medscape USPSTF should reconsider recommendation to lower mammogram age. It came out as a reaction to The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation to lower the starting age for routine breast screening by a decade for all average-risk women, using mammograms.
Breast screening is usually recommended from age 45-50 years but best to start at age 50 and retest every second year, the proposed recommendation would lower this by ten years. This raises several problems: screening for breast cancer in younger women (under 40 years old) is more difficult, their breast tissue is generally denser than the breast tissue in older women, and it could test false positive results leading to unnecessary biopsies and the added fear that the patient may have breast cancer. Furthermore, the evidence for breast cancer screening of women in their 40s is insufficient; it is still too young given the uncertain benefits and common harms for healthy women.
Steven Woloshin, co-author of The New USPSTF Mammography Recommendations — A Dissenting View, already explained with his colleagues that breast cancer mortality among women under 50 has been cut in half over the past 30 years. “In their own calculations, Woloshin and colleagues found that lowering the screening age to 40 came with a small potential benefit and a substantial risk for harm. Combing data from the National Cancer Institute, the team reported that the risk for death for women in their 40s from any cause over the next 10 years was about 3% whether or not they received their biennial mammogram. The risk for death from breast cancer in that time was 0.23% with mammograms – about 2 in every 1000 women – and 0.31% without. “That’s 1 less breast cancer death per 1000 women screened for 10 years,” Woloshin said.” The benefits seem to be much smaller than the harms including false alarms requiring biopsy.
There are other options such as breast self-exam for breast awareness: an inspection of your breasts that you do on your own, to help increase your breast awareness, by using your eyes and hands to determine if there are any changes to the look and feel of your breasts. There is also ultrasound to detect breast cancer, which is a non-invasive, painless test that uses sound waves to form an image of structures in the breast. This helps your healthcare provider determine whether these changes are caused by a non-cancerous or benign lump of tissue or a breast cancer, based upon the shape, location and other characteristics visible on ultrasound.
There could be another possible safe alternative in the future for detecting cancer. Researchers at the University of Bristol have unveiled a concept for the future that involves women being able to receive clinical breast exams (CBE) performed by a robot at their local pharmacy or health center. The robotic device can apply specific forces and use sensor technology to detect lumps at greater depths than traditional methods, potentially leading to earlier breast cancer diagnosis. The team presented initial test results for the experimental device, named IRIS (robotIc Radial palpatIon mechaniSm), at the 2023 RO-MAN conference, highlighting the potential for revolutionizing how women monitor their breast health. While the device is still in early development and has not been tested on real people, it holds promise for improving breast cancer detection and could be combined with other techniques for more accurate diagnoses.
If we examine the reasons cancer is an issue and make the necessary changes, it would not be so prevalent. All healing begins in the mind yet drugs have replaced common sense and personal responsibility. The cellular breakdown in developing cancer takes many years, a compromised immunity does not happen overnight; exceptions being high radiation or other direct toxic exposure. Treatment must be approached to the causal focus; cancer should not be treated reversely; healthy cell structures must be maintained from further deterioration and infection with all treatments. Here are 4 cancer facts the cancer industry promotes as myths, which are summarized below:
- The rise in all types of cancer is due to modern diet, lifestyle, and environment. Records of lifespan prior to the 18th century are scarce, but in all records of studied prehistoric skeletons, only 200 cases of possible cancer have been found. However, from 1900-2011, cancer deaths have increased three-fold. Researchers have found that in 80% of processed food, four main ingredients are found which harm immunity: corn, wheat, soy, and meat.
- Acidic diets cause cancer. Blood pH should be within a range of 7.3 to 7.41. If the pH is lower than that range, acidosis occurs, which leads to central nervous system depression. Severe acidosis (below 7.0) can cause coma and death. If the pH rises above 7.45, the result is alkalosis. Keeping the body closer to an alkaline state (up to .05) can make a significant difference in cancer growth or suppression. Cancer cells cannot live in an alkaline environment.
- Sugar feeds cancer. A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients. Another epidemiological study covering 21 modern countries (Europe, North America, Japan and others) found that sugar intake is a strong risk factor for higher breast cancer rates, especially in older women.
- Conventional cancer treatment kills more than it cures. Five-year relative survival rates for cancer are standard because after 5 years, many patients’ conditions worsen. More accurate long-term statistics would reflect ten years or more, as well as data on cost-effectiveness, immune system impact, quality of life, morbidity, and mortality. When these factors are considered, chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival.
Things that we know to help prevent cancer is eating an organic diet, avoiding WI-FI environments as much as possible, and lessening the fear induced stress. Maintaining a strong immunity is critical, T-cells should be kept at optimum levels by using Thymus Gland, and Melapure Melatonin, which has been used in several cancer studies. Gut health is necessary since all disease begins in the gut: Full Spectrum Digestive Enzyme and Laktokhan can benefit gut health tremendously. As you see, true disease prevention is the key to avoid cancer and other diseased states and the best defense is awareness and avoiding unnecessary medical interventions. After all, why should we trust the medical system or the drug companies that fund them? Trust needs to be earned, and since Covid, they do not deserve our trust.
Apparently, they do not seem to have the trust at all. A Gallup poll has revealed that only 27% of Americans have a great deal of confidence in 14 major American institutions, marking a record low since 1979 and a 5% decrease from 2021. The study found significant declines in trust for the three branches of the federal government, including the presidency, Supreme Court, and Congress. The poll also showed declines in public confidence for various other institutions, with Congress ranking the lowest at only 7%.
Canadians are not happy either and the distrust does not only concern political institutions but health care as well. A recent Research Co. poll indicates that Canadians’ confidence in their country’s healthcare system has decreased over the past year and a half, with 67% of respondents expressing “very confident” or “moderately confident” sentiments, down 10 points from October 2021. Only 20% of Canadians believe minor changes are needed to improve the healthcare system, with 17% advocating for a complete overhaul. A majority (78%) oppose the federal government cutting healthcare funding to reduce debt, and 50% disagree with the idea of the private sector managing healthcare.
In historical times, 2020 BC (before Covid), people had confidence in their future and they believed and trusted social institutions. They believed their government had their best interests at heart, they believed in the medical system and that their doctor was not influenced by pharmaceutical benefits, they believed what was reported on the main stream media and legacy media was true investigative journalism free from the influence of the government propaganda. They trusted the health institutions such as the Health Canada, FDA, CDC, NIH and the WHO, for what these agencies reported and recommended was properly vetted and based on unbiased clinical science and not influenced by political interest groups. They also believed in two sexes, men and women, and that supreme court justices could describe what a woman was, they believed that they had natural immunity developed since infancy and that they had freedom of speech. We are not talking about the Stone Age, it was just a few years ago and yet the golden ages, when we believed in fantasies and we trusted the wizard behind the curtain, seems like an eternity.
- Dahl, Eldon. 2023 To Mask Or Not To Mask: Sadly it is Still a Question
- Dahl, Eldon. 2023 How the System Fails Us
- Elliott, Kyle. 2023 When Questioning Authority is Healthy
- Dahl, Eldon. 2023 The Deception About Nutritional Supplements
- Dahl, Eldon. 2022 Selling Sickness in the Name of Health
- Brooks, Megan. 2023. USPSTF Should Reconsider Recommendation to Lower Mammogram Age: Experts. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/997073
- Canseco, Mario. 2023. Confidence in Health Care Down 10 Points in Canada Since 2021. https://researchco.ca/2023/04/21/health-care-canada-2023/
- 2015. Vital Statistics of the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/vsus.htm
- Halpert, Madeline. 2022. Trust In U.S. Institutions Hits Record Low, Poll Finds. https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/07/05/trust-in-us-institutions-hits-record-low-poll-finds/?sh=1cc1694fdbd5
- Johnson, George. 2010. Unearthing Prehistoric Tumors, and Debate. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28cancer.html?_r=0
- Moerman, C J et al. 1993. Dietary sugar intake in the aetiology of biliary tract cancer. International journal of epidemiology 22,2: 207-14. doi:10.1093/ije/22.2.207 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8505175/
- Seely, S, and D F Horrobin. 1983. Diet and breast cancer: the possible connection with sugar consumption. Medical hypotheses 11,3: 319-27. doi:10.1016/0306-9877(83)90095-6 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6645999/
- Tzemanaki, Antonia Dr. 2023 – current project. ARTEMIS: Advanced Robotic Breast Examination Intelligent System. https://www.dexterousrobotlab.com/robotic-breast-examination
- Woloshin, Steven et al. 2023. The New USPSTF Mammography Recommendations — A Dissenting View. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2307229
 Woloshin, Steven et al. 2023.
 Brooks, Megan. 2023.
 Tzemanaki, Antonia Dr. 2023 – current project.
 Johnson, George. 2010.
 CDC. 2015.
 Moerman, C J et al. 1993.
 Seely, S, and D F Horrobin. 1983.
 Halpert, Madeline. 2022.
 Canseco, Mario. 2023.