CureZone.com   Educating Instead of Medicating Like CureZone website on Facebook
Home > Forums30464 visitors online now Add To Favorites Log On    Join/Sign Up    User Finder   Inbox New

Image Embedded Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)

Forum: Cancer Support
Read This First:  BSA  RN  ALL R  ~BSA  ~RN  RRR  RR  R   FAQ  Image Embedded  Video Embedded Audio Embedded   Images   Description   Cancer Recommended Books   Cancer Homepage   Rules
  Home
   Forums
      Cancer Alternatives Support Forum
Search CureZone:
 
 
  • Image Embedded Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably neve...    RN by LCD   7 year  5,023   3 of 3 (100%)  Cancer Support
    This is NOT my avatar. This is just randomly assigned image, until I upload my own avatar. Click here to see my profile.
    LCD
    Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)
    PM LCD
    Date: 2/22/2006 11:21:00 PM   ( 7 year ago )
    Hits:   5024   Size: 29587 char.     Replies:   2
    URL:   http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=338270
    Status:       RN [Message recommended for CureZone Newsletter!]
    Already alerted!   Already alerted!

    Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)

     Posted Monday, August 15, 2005 by Dawn Prate
    Print this article   Link to this article


    Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman's chances of survival by at least 17 percent.

    The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.

    Effectiveness of Mammography

    Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

    At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or "false negatives." Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.

    Radiation Risks

    Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.

    According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.

    Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.

    Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

     

    Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.

    The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it." Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.

     

    Navigating the Statistics

    While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40 percent in the United States.

    Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases. While the matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms.

    The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.

    Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they may even do more harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.

    New Screening Technologies

    While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.

    Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.


    The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:

    Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
    The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

    In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
    Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23

    "The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
    Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

    Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
    The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537

     

     

    No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
    The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23

    The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.
    The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291

    A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
    Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21

    Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
    Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588


    In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
    The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540

    Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
    The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104

    Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
    Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132


    The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
    The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544

    High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72
    Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588


    "Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women."
    Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

    According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%."
    Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467

    Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
    Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

    Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
    Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42


    Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
    The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305

    Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
    Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123

    As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
    The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

    Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
    Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973


    In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
    The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

    The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
    Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47

    In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
    Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12


    One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from
    The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57

    One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53
    When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233

    Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
    The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

    A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
    Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
    The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53


    Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
    The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234 For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
    Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587

    Printer-friendly version of this page
    Email this message to a friend
    Bookmark this page/Add to Favorites or press Ctrl+D
    Alert Webmaster & Moderators
    Already alerted!  Already alerted!
    How do you feel about this message?     Agree     Disagree       Hide this question

    3 of 3 (100%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?
    How do you feel about this message?     Agree     Disagree       Hide this question

    Reply to This Message   Post a Reply to this message by using a plain text editor  Post a Reply to this message by using an advanced HTML text processor called FCK  Post a Reply to this message by using an advanced HTML text processor called Tiny MCE
    Use of CureZone is subject to the following Terms of Service
    Find & Order All Messages Posted by LCD
    by
    DISCLAIMER / WARNING Important Disclaimer!
    Answers, comments and opinions provided on CureZone are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. CureZone does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in messages, comments or articles on CureZone. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published here. Read more ...
    Selected Ads from CureZone Sponsors

    Memorial Day Free Gifts!!!
    Available until May 31, 2013, or until supplies last!


    Hulda Clark Cleanse Kits
    New Lower Prices!!!


    Cancer CURE Found!
    Fact: Cancer Can Be Cured With Quercetin + Vitamin C For Only 6 Dollars!


    Rose Laurel OPC Capsules
    15% Off With Curezone Discount Code Of Lr001


    Hydrazine Sulfate - Cancer Support
    Hydrazine Sulfate’s Original Proponent, Dr. Joseph Gold ...


    Original Hulda Clark
    Parasites Cleanse: Black Walnut, Cloves & Wormwood















Selected Ads from CureZone Sponsors

Memorial Day Free Gifts!!!
Available until May 31, 2013, or until supplies last!


Hulda Clark Cleanse Kits
New Lower Prices!!!


Clarkia $22
Parasites Cleanse suggested by Hulda Clark With Black Walnut, Cloves and Wormwo...


Free Clark DVD!
Bestselling author Dr. Hulda Clark claims to have cured cancer


Medically Proven Anti-Cancer Benefits
Medical researchers confirm electrolyzed reduced wate...


Cancer CURE Found!
Fact: Cancer Can Be Cured With Quercetin + Vitamin C For Only 6 Dollars!


Rose Laurel OPC Capsules
15% Off With Curezone Discount Code Of Lr001


Hydrazine Sulfate - Cancer Support
Hydrazine Sulfate’s Original Proponent, Dr. Joseph Gold ...


Original Hulda Clark
Parasites Cleanse: Black Walnut, Cloves & Wormwood


Proven Candida Diet
The Only Legitimate Diet for Treating Candida in 30 Days


Powerful Candida Treatment
Try Dr. Eric Bakker’s Candida Crusher To Treat Candida Forever!


Dirty Electricity In Your Home???
EMF’s From CFL Light Bulbs, Wifi, House Appliances...Dama...


Memorial Day Free Gifts!!!
Available until May 31, 2013, or until supplies last!


Yeast Infection Stopped!
Hear my No-BS story on how I stopped my yeast problems once and fo...


Natural Cancer Remedies
Natural Cancer Remedies









 
Selected Ads from CureZone Sponsors

Memorial Day Free Gifts!!!
Available until May 31, 2013, or until supplies last!


Hulda Clark Cleanse Kits
New Lower Prices!!!


Clarkia $22
Parasites Cleanse suggested by Hulda Clark With Black Walnut, Cloves and Wormwo...


Free Clark DVD!
Bestselling author Dr. Hulda Clark claims to have cured cancer


Medically Proven Anti-Cancer Benefits
Medical researchers confirm electrolyzed reduced wate...


Cancer CURE Found!
Fact: Cancer Can Be Cured With Quercetin + Vitamin C For Only 6 Dollars!


Rose Laurel OPC Capsules
15% Off With Curezone Discount Code Of Lr001


Hydrazine Sulfate - Cancer Support
Hydrazine Sulfate’s Original Proponent, Dr. Joseph Gold ...


 
Back To Top

Selected Ads from CureZone Sponsors: Become a Sponsor

VIP

Black Walnut, Cloves & Wormwood $22
Clarkia Extra Strong Parasites Cleanse for $26
$10 off Oxy-Powder®
1 time use only. A special discount to all curezone members!
High Blood Pressure?
3 easy exercises drop blood pressure below 120/80 as soon as today
Memorial Day Free Gifts!!!
Available until May 31, 2013, or until supplies last!
Zapper $65
with Copper Handles & Battery, Original Hulda Clark
 
 

PLAT

Oxy-Powder® Colon Cleanse
Top Rated Natural Oxygen Cleanse. Best Product Line by NaturalNews....
Allergies & Candidasis
Threelac can help you get relief—In just days. Wholesale pricing!
Herpes Treatment News
World-First Single Application Herpes Treatment.
Purest Body Products
Sanctum Pure Body Products are so pure you could eat them (no guarantees...
Detoxify and Cleanse Naturally
Drink ionized alkaline waters medically proven health benefits...
Cancer CURE Found!
Fact: Cancer Can Be Cured With Quercetin + Vitamin C For Only 6 Dollars!
 
 

GOLD

Treat Your Candida Infection
Dr. Eric Bakker Candida Crusher Program To Kill Candida Yeast Fo...
Bad Breath Cure, Halitosis Remedy
Dr. Anthony Dailley has 98% success rate.
Utopia Silver Supplements
Mineral & Vitamin Organ Support. Find the supplements you need to s...
Far Infrared Sauna
Far infrared saunas reduce joint pain, stimulate blood circulation, and pr...
Treat Your Candida!
Dr. Eric Bakker Candida Crusher Program To Kill Candida Yeast Forever. Ge...
 
 

GOLD

Healthy Weight Loss
”After having tried pills, shakes, and about everything else ... I am thr...
Proven Candida Diet
The Only Legitimate Diet for Treating Candida in 30 Days
Anti Cancer Medical Effect
Electrolyzed reduced water protects against oxidative damage to DN...
Destroy Parasites Quickly
Learn How to Destroy Parasites And Be Free of Your Unbearable Sympt...
Proven medical anti-diabetic benefits
Electrolyzed drinking water significantly reduces blood...
I Look 20 Years Younger!
My skin feels amazing!
 
 

SILVER

J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H. Restore lost reserves. J.CROW’S® Lugol’s Iodine Soluti...
Bad Breath Cure, Bad Breath Treatment, How To Cure
Bad Breath Cure, Bad Breath Treatment, How...
Full Body Detox
Give Your Body the Internal Shower it Needs and Desire.
The Tesla Shield®
Transformational Technology For Mind Body And Soul.
No More Yeast!
Get a risk-free 40-day trial of the product that has revolutionized how people...
Cancer, HIV and Hep-C Remedy
Proven natural remedy for cancer, HIV, Hep-C and much more!
 
 

SILVER

Top 10 Ways To Reduce EMF Radiation
Dont Be Part Of A Coming Epidemic of Brain Tumors and Oth...
Colonix Program
The Paranil capsules contain 18 detoxifying herbs that have been successfully...
Memorial Day Free Gifts!!!
Available until May 31, 2013, or until supplies last!
Natural Cancer Remedies
Natural Cancer Remedies
 
 
Back To Top How many people click on the sponsord links? Become a Sponsor

 


 

Donate to CureZone

 


Share:  Facebook  MySpace  Digg  Reddit  StumbleUpon  Furl this page  Delicious  Magnolia  Mixx  BlinkList  dzone  Spurl  Simpy.com  Fark.com  BlogMarks  Wists.com  Google

Translate This Page:

French    German    Spain    Italian    Dutch    Russian    Portuguese    Japanese    Korean    Arabic    Chinese Simplified



 


Guest Book - Liver Flush FAQ - News - Link Exchange - Add URL - How To Exchange Links? - About Global Directory

Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Spam Policy - Disclaimer - Guidelines & Rules - Forum Trolls - Fair use notice

Staff's pages:  Owen - Wrenn - Maya


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - About - Donors - Stats



Copyright 1996 - 2012 curezone.com


fetched in 0.25 sec at 5/26/2013 4:35:12 AM, requested by 184.73.74.47, referred by http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=338270 , requested 1 pages in this session, y=15