Search Daily Dose articles:



The Douglass Report June 2007

June 2007 PDF

Dear friend,

You’d be hard-pressed to find a woman in this country who hasn’t been conned into getting a routine mammogram. And yes, I mean conned. Mammograms are touted as the best form of early detection for breast cancer. But in reality, getting one actually increases the risk of spreading the cancer if it’s present. Back in 1994, the Lancet published a study saying that breast compression “could cause small tumors to burst open and thus spread the cancer throughout the body.” Don’t American doctors read the Lancet? It’s only the best medical journal in the world.

Of course, the professional hucksters in mainstream medicine would never tell you about mammograms’ dangers. Instead, these spin doctors do their best to “raise breast cancer awareness” as they call it. In reality, it’s nothing more than a scare tactic to get as many women as possible to buy into routine mammograms––and to pay into the system. (I find it interesting that most of these con men are epidemiologists––also known as bean-and-spleen counters––who wouldn’t recognize a female breast unless they saw it flattened out on a mammogram.)

I can just see these men now––sitting in their armchairs, puffing on their cigars, and thinking of ways to blow smoke toward an impressionable public in an effort to spread their own narrow-minded ideas of “preventive medicine.”

A headline I read on NewScientist.com proves my point perfectly: “Red meat linked to breast cancer risk.” It’s a classic example of the puerile persiflage that’s constantly preached to a panicked public. The Archives of Internal Medicine (AIM) announced that eating more than three servings of red meat a week leads to an increase in breast cancer incidence.

Are you kidding me? Man has been eating red meat for thousands of years, yet breast cancer is a modern disease. Does this sound like a bunch of drummed up hocus pocus to you? I know it does to me.

The researchers don’t even try to disguise their poor excuse for a study, and I suppose the general public is too ignorant to know the difference. See for yourself: “Red meat intake was assessed with a food frequency questionnaire administered in 1991, 1995, and 1999, with respondents followed up through 2003. Breast cancers were self-reported and confirmed by review of pathologic reports.” They call that science? Food frequency questionnaires are notoriously inaccurate and misleading. The AIM should get out of the nutrition business if this is the best they can do.

They say that three servings of red meat will increase your risk of breast cancer. But what constitutes a serving? Is it 6 ounces or 16? And, come to think of it, what exactly is red meat? You and I both know they’re talking about beef, so why don’t they say so? And another thing: How was the meat cooked?  Don’t the people associated with the Archives of Internal Medicine know that there is a vast nutritional difference in foods according to how they are cooked?

I’m telling you, without controls in place that deal with these very important questions, it’s impossible to determine anything––especially something as important and complicated as a food’s effect on the body. This is a prime example of our tax dollars in action––whirling AIMlessly around in a cesspool of inane modern-day research. It makes me sick.

And you know what else makes me sick? Spreading the same sort of self-centered, profit-driven propaganda to men who worry about protecting their prostates.

Don’t be hoodwinked by the prostate scam of the century…

I recently received an email from a man, who I’ll call Ted in order to protect the identity of the innocent and misinformed. I wanted to share with you the gist of what I shared with him––in case you ever find yourself in the same boat.

First, a summary: 66-year-old Ted has a family history of enlarged prostate (technically called benign prostatic hyperplasia, or BPH). So when he began experiencing the symptoms himself––increased bathroom trips, weaker urine flow, less than full erections and decreased semen volume––he went straight to the urologist, who predictably conducted a PSA (prostate specific antigen) test.

Urologists consider the PSA to be the gold standard for measuring prostate enlargement, which never ceases to boggle my mind, since there’s absolutely no correlation between PSA levels and prostate size or symptoms. You could say that the PSA test correlates with everything and with nothing at all. All you’d have to do is sneeze to change your PSA level.

So, needless to say, it’s meaningless and dangerous to make diagnostic decisions based on it. Stick with it long enough, and the end result will almost always be surgery. The urologist should have tested Ted’s blood testosterone, but I doubt that he did––even though all of Ted’s symptoms were general symptoms of aging due to low testosterone levels.

I don’t know why, but most of the time urologists completely ignore the importance of this hormone in their long-suffering male patients. So instead of checking and monitoring Ted’s testosterone, the urologist continued to check Ted’s PSA every six months for two years. The levels didn’t change much during that time––going only from a 7 to an 8.2.

After a while, Ted decided to forget about the PSA and turned instead to natural prostate supplements. Over a four-year period, he tried about four or five different formulas. But when he went back to the urologist after a few years, he found out that his prostate had not shrunk and that his PSA had risen to 14.12. That’s when he wrote to me.

He said, “I must say that I am not at all impressed by the prostate formulas I have used and fail to see how each can claim to be the best, most powerful formula available. Now I am faced with further testing and probably biopsies to determine if cancer is present, and who knows after that.”

Many of you can probably sympathize with how Ted is feeling. But at the risk of sounding a bit callous, I don’t think his disappointment is justified––and I’ll tell you why.

Most prostate supplements that I know of are extremely effective––but they’re not the be-all and end-all. Other factors are involved as well, including your prostate condition when you start the herbal treatment, what products you take, and at what dose. The food you eat also factors into the equation, as do numerous other things. So don’t blame the herbal treatments––it’s just not that simple.

If you have an enlarged prostate, it’s a great idea to take an herbal supplement. But don’t stop there. The best thing you can do is to go to a holistic doctor who looks at the entire body and not just the urinary tract.

I’m sure he’ll check your testosterone level––and if he discovers that it’s low, he’ll likely put you on supplemental testosterone. But one thing I’m sure he won’t do is put any stock in a useless PSA.

Not to change the subject, but I wanted to save room to tell you about another Big Pharma drug scandal I just came across. This type of sordid behavior by pharmaceutical companies has become so common that it’s about as shocking as charges of wrongdoing on Capitol Hill. But for those readers who care about the criminal and callous behavior of the drug Mafia, I feel like I have to continue to report the latest antics of these miscreants. Like this one…

Health Disclaimer: The information provided on this site should not be construed as personal medical advice or instruction. No action should be taken based solely on the contents of this site. Readers should consult appropriate health professionals on any matter relating to their health and well-being.


Copyright © 2017 ·  NewMarket Health