Cancer Screening: Does Early Detection Save Lives?

In 1971, President Nixon declared a “War on Cancer.” Since then, nearly every public health message about cancer stressed the importance of screening.

Public health organizations and cancer charities bombard us with the idea that “early detection” saves lives. Men and women. Young and old.  Get screened for prostate cancer… breast cancer… colon cancer… skin cancer… and more.

It seems logical. The earlier you discover cancer, the more likely you are to survive the disease. Tens of millions of people have gone to their doctors’ offices for screening. Billions of dollars pour into the coffers of the cancer industry.

But does “early detection” save lives? Do the risks of cancer screening outweigh the benefits?

Apparently, the answer to both questions is no.

For years, orthodox medicine claimed that statistics were on their side. They pointed to an increasing “survival rate.” This proved that we were making progress in the fight against cancer. But let’s take a closer look…

Experts define a cancer “survivor” as someone who is still alive five years after diagnosis. Based on this definition, the number of survivors is going up. But not so fast…

We now have the technology to detect “cancers” that would have gone unnoticed before. And we are using this technology more than ever. That means we are diagnosing cancer at a much earlier stage. People are living longer after “diagnosis.” But they are not actually living any longer.

The age-adjusted death rate is a more reliable way to look at cancer. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, this statistic dropped just 5 percent from 1950 to 2005.1 That’s not a lot of progress for more than half a century of research and funding.

Mainstream health organizations are the staunchest defenders of cancer screening. But even these groups are starting to change their tune. The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently updated their public messages regarding cancer screening. They even admit to overstating the benefits.2

Dr. Otis Brawley is the Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society. In a New York Times article he states that, “American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.”

But it’s worse than that.  These organizations did not just exaggerate the benefits. They also hid the risks.

The late Dr. Joan Austoker was a “breast screening” expert. She worked for the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. She wrote the recommendations that this public health service gave to the public. But in an interview with The Sunday Times, Dr. Austoker admitted that the NHS actually hid vital information. This information proved that treatment for a certain cancer was unnecessary.3

“It was a mistake to withhold this information from women,” said Dr. Austoker.

No, it was not a “mistake.” It was unethical and fraudulent.

So, why are these organizations softening their stance? It’s simple. The facts have become too blatant to ignore. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, early stage breast cancer diagnoses have doubled. Yet, the number of cancers that have spread to other parts of the body have barely budged.4

You might wonder what the “risks” of cancer screening are. After all, “early detection” ought to be a good thing, right? Shouldn’t you know if there is a health concern you need to worry about?

The first risks to consider are “false positives.” The National Cancer Institute funded a study to estimate how often this happens in breast cancer screening. It determined that 61 percent of women who get annual mammograms for 10 years will receive a false positive.5 That means 610 healthy women (out of every 1,000) will be told they have cancer.

“You only have a few years to live.” Talk about devastating news.

The other major risk is over-diagnosis. This is when doctors treat small lesions or innocuous tumors as if they are imminently deadly. We now know that in most cases, these “cancers” would not spread or even cause harm.

Breast cancer screening is rife with over-diagnosis. Research shows that for every life saved, 10 women get treatment they don’t need.6 This often means chemotherapy and radiation. These treatments are costly. They can be debilitating. And they are potentially life-threatening. Other women choose to have one or both breasts removed. And all of this for a problem which did not even exist!

The American Cancer Society continues to state that a mammogram is “one of the best things a woman can do to protect her health.” But the facts suggest otherwise.

Mammograms deliver a very high dose of ionizing radiation. Just one mammogram can deliver as much radiation as 1,000 chest x-rays.7 And this blast of radiation is directed at highly sensitive breast tissues. Many experts claim that repeated annual breast cancer screenings are actually a major cause of breast cancer.

And millions of healthy women are being subjected to this risk unnecessarily. Doctors must screen 1,000 women over 50 for 10 years to avert just one death from breast cancer.

Or consider prostate cancer.  For every 100 men diagnosed, about 70 have cancers that would never grow to harm them. The Agency for Healthcare Policy Research proved this in a study. It showed that men who had their prostate gland removed survived an average of 14 years after surgery. That sounds great.  But what about men who elected “watchful waiting?” These men also lived an average of 14 years after diagnosis.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of men each year are subjected to aggressive treatments for prostate “cancer.” And what are the results of these costly treatments? Often it is impotence and incontinence.

It’s the same with skin cancer. A Dartmouth Medical School study showed that skin biopsies rose 250 percent between 1986 and 2009. And yet, during the same period, there was no change in the melanoma death rate or the incidence of advanced stage melanoma.8

Dr. Bernard Ackerman is a renowned dermatologist and director of the Ackerman Academy of Dermatopathology in New York. He believes that dermatologists have gone too far. “There has been a mania for taking off these moles that are of no consequence,” says Ackerman. “We’re talking about billions and billions of dollars, based on hype.”

The over-diagnosis and over-treatment of early stage cancers leads to a huge number of unnecessary procedures. It also blurs our progress in the war on cancer. What matters is the number of deaths. And the massive push for early detection and conventional treatment has not reduced that number.

The orthodox approach to cancer is simply not working. In May of 1986, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine called the last 35 years of cancer research and treatment “a qualified failure.”

The report demanded an emphasis on prevention. It has been 25 years since this report came out. And yet, there is still no emphasis on prevention. This is despite the fact that our lifestyle and environment are responsible for 90 percent or more of all cases of cancer.9

Here’s the problem… Orthodox medicine has no incentive to focus on “prevention.” There’s no money in it. So, whether the screening involves cancer, cholesterol, diabetes, or any other disease, the objective is the same. Detect the symptoms earlier, so that more “treatments” can be given.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that early detection of disease cannot be useful. It can be. It should be a wakeup call to change your lifestyle, your environment and your diet. . And it should encourage you to do the things that have been proven to prevent and successfully treat that disease.

Unfortunately, mainstream medicine has failed on both of these counts.

But there are ways to treat cancer that are safe and highly effective. These treatments work with your body not against it. They support your immune system. And they use powerful natural medicines that your body recognizes and accepts… without debilitating side effects.

In the August issue of our monthly newsletter, Natural Health Dossier, we report on three natural cancer treatments. These therapies have been proven to work. They are supported by dozens of peer-reviewed studies. They cost only a fraction of the treatments offered by mainstream medicine. And their safety is unquestioned.

Click here to learn more about Natural Health Dossier and to get your copy of this valuable report.


– 61% of women who get annual mammograms for 10 years will receive a false positive. Click to Tweet
– Out of 100 men diagnosed with Prostate Cancer, about 70 have cancers that would never grow to harm them. Click to Tweet

Related Articles:

Health Topic: Cancer


  1. Virginia says:

    I stopped having screening many years ago after a false positive caused me great aggravation. I am now living in awareness,having changed my lifestyle and diet to a healthy,active one.I am how a health coach trying to educate people on the dangers of believing everything told to them without understanding the consequences of choice. Thank you for this valuable information.

  2. anthony says:


  3. anthony says:


  4. Joanne Mac Donald RHN says:

    I have been refusing mammograms since I turned 40 when my family doctor suggested I start getting them. I also refuse regular dental ex-rays. A whole food organic local and sustainable diet is the only answer. Take iodine supplements and iodine rich food to avoid breast cancer and get a rebounder.
    Really pretty simple.

  5. K. J. MacGiolla Comghail says:


    Ignorance is your biggest enemy. You must study, learn and understand the disease in the context of your biology. NHD, HSI and other natural health advocacy organisations are a good start.

    I’ll offer some tips here, but be certain that you will still need to learn about them in detail and how to use them effectively and safely. Cancer is a complex thing and one kind of treatment is not likely to be effective in every case. Therefore, take every possible measure, allowing for compatibility between them. I advocate an Integrative Medicine System in which treatment is divided into phases, each with a specific strategic purpose and delivered accordingly. An important factor is Biodynamic Balance.

    The phases are:
    1. Diagnostic;
    2. Stabilisation;
    3. Sensitive (cytotoxic treatment of drug-sensitive cells);
    4. Resistant (cytotoxic treatment of drug-resistant cells);
    5. Convalescent;
    6. Remission.

    The treatment components of this model are:
    1. Medical expertise (use Integrative CAM!)
    2. Holistics (mind, body heart & soul);
    3. Diet;
    4. Detox;
    5. Oxidative Preconditioning;
    6. Analgesia (usually not needed with most good natural cancer treatments because they’re analgesics in their own rights);
    7. Immune System (best possible function is imperative);
    8. Nervous System (governs most biofunctions);
    9. Differentiation (cause as many rogue cells as possible to ‘mature’ and cease multiplying);
    10. Electromedical (incredibly potent – use with restraint!)
    11. Potentiation (increase bioavailability, potency & retention of active cancer agents0;
    12. Redox (aggressive oxidative therapy for healing, immunity and malignant cell apoptosis);
    13. Re-energising;
    14. Antifungal;
    15. Antibacterial;
    16. Antiparasitic;
    17. Antiviral;
    18. NRCCs (Non-resistant cancer cell apoptogenic treatment);
    19. Brain Cancer (blood brain barrier transient agents);
    20. Anticachexia (Hydrazine Sulphate to stop body wasting away);
    21. Bone Resorption (stoppage of bone tissue destruction);
    22. Liver Cancer (special requirements applicable);
    23. Protect & Rescue (Antioxidants and antitoxins);
    24. MDRCs, MDRMs (multi-drug resistant cancer cells and microbes – special eracidation treatments);
    25. CSCs, LECSCs (Cancer Stem Cell & Low Energy Cancer Stem Cell treatments);
    26. Pregnancy (Special precautions & protocol restrictions);
    27. Regeneration;
    28. Completion;
    29. Emergency Strategy (special stabilisation strategy for late stage IV cancers).

    A: Start with diet and lifestyle. Orient yourself to promote a body pH between 7.1 & 7.5. Dedicated pH-style cancer diets are Johanna Budwig cottage cheese & flaxseed; Johanna Brandt grape diet; and Bill Henderson Protocol.
    B: Detox – Clinoptilolite is a Zeolite mineral – the best and safest in the business. But it’s more. This is also the best single malignancy apoptogen known to me with a proven 79% total remission rate against mixed Stage III & IV cancers already declared terminal and given up on by mainstream medicine. It is one of the rare G-phase cell cycle apoptogens. Brands I know of are Zeoactiv8, NCD and Zeotrex. Must be micronised & activated. 30 drops orally every 4 to 6 hours and between doses, take a complete mineral supplement.
    C: Oxidative Agents – in all cases, start with very miniscule doses and slowly increase to therapeutic doses as can be safely tolerated over 10 to 14 days. Overdosage before tolerance is gradually built up will result in systemic oxidative damage. Make sure dosages progressively increase with care. 1. DMSO is one of the best. Differentiator, potentiator, antiviral, antimicrobial, healing and immune booster, pH agent, powerful analgesic as potent as Morphine, but three times longer lasting and NOT toxic. Must study thoroughly before using it and handle with tremendous care. This is an Acetone-like solvent that will pick up other compounds and carry them through your skin and membranes FAST – if they are toxic contaminants, DMSO can increase the toxicity dramatically. Don’t fool with the stuff. 2. Hydrogen Peroxide is an antiviral, antimicrobial, healing and immune booster and malignant cell apoptogen. Ozone is an antiviral, antimicrobial, healing and immune booster and malignant cell apoptogen. It can be made with an air ozonator and the air needs only to be inhaled. Dosage is difficult to measure, so use care and err on the side of caution. 4. Chlorine Dioxide is an antiviral, antimicrobial, healing and immune booster and malignant cell apoptogen. It can be made in the home.
    D: Electromedicine – The Rife Beam Ray or Rife-Bare Machines are the best of an amazing family of electronic devices. They have the ONLY legitimate claim from Scripps Clinic trials in the 1950s to 100% cure of terminal cancers in all of medical history. Correct frequencies must be ascertained and used, preferably with medical supervision. Use with restraint – nominally 3 minutes every three days. Overuse can result in TLS, which is quite deadly.

    Lots of other good additives exist – Turmeric from your spice rack, potentiated with Black Pepper. North American Paw Paw for resistant cancers and microbes. Frankincense, Myrrh, Poly-MVA, Marijuana and many more.


    Then cease to fear cancer altogether. It’s not that hard to beat when you know your stuff.

  6. K. J. MacGiolla Comghail says:


    Just a couple more:

    MSM available in just about every pharmacy and health store. MSM is oxidised DMSO and within your system, a proportion of it will reduce to DMSO, which in turn reduces to DMS. At each reduction stage, Oxygen is released. Therefore has all of the aforementioned oxidative agent properties. Good for arthritis for the same reasons, too.

    Apricot pips are the best natural source of Amygdalin. This is a good malignancy apoptogen. Careful with dosage because it kills cancer cells by the action of cyanide release. Your system must have enough enzymes present to convert free cyanide’s transient toxicity to your healthy cells. Good analgesic too – also releases Benzaldehyde. Nominal dose is 6 to 12 pips finely ground per day. Don’t take them all at once. Seeds from any other rosaceous plants also contain Amygdalin – plums, cherries, nectarines, peaches, apples, pears, raspberries, blackberries, strawberries, almonds and so on. Highly respected preventive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *