Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
🚨 DOCTOR DROPS TRUTH BOMB ON MAMMOGRAMS 🚨 “Data shows we are literally CAUSING breast cancer with screening.” Dr. Jay Goodbinder just went nuclear: - After 10 yearly mammograms → 50%+ chance of a false-positive that leads to biopsies & more radiation - Crushing breasts with 40+ lbs of... show more
3,656,532 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce •via X (Twitter)
59 Yorum
Disclaimer needed. Chiropractor is not a doctor.
A doctor of chiropractic is a doctor.
@_real_Rich_ I have a doctorate of law does that qualify me?
Do you wear scrubs to create the appearance of expertise? I don’t necessarily think disagree with most of what skeptics have to say about these subjects, it’s the whole chiro thing that irritates me because they hijack knowledge and innovations from true scientists and engineers and present it as chiropractic care.
Quackipractors do more harm than good. Same thing
A doctor of chiropractic is the only doctor out of 45 in the last 30yrs that had the knowledge to heal my neck & head pain.
@Melnyiam_ Thats why you look like a fake sex doll with a long neck? 🤣
@ValerieAnne1970 Stepford wife neck.
Fake "Doctor" endangers women with fraudulent scam
A doctor of chiropractic is a doctor.
Insurance will not pay for an ultrasound unless there is a suspicious mass on 2-D or 3-D mammogram…this policy needs to change.
I agree!
Mammogram didn’t show my breast cancer, but I felt a lump so my Dr ordered a ultrasound knowing mammograms can miss things. Sure enough, I was infiltrated with cancer. Just skip the mammogram & go straight ultrasound. I’m four years cancer free!
Thank you for sharing D'nice!
Oh squeezing breast tissue between metal and zapping it with radiation every year isn't good?
Exactly Darla! Thank you!
👇Thermography For Breast Screening👇 👇QT Ultrasound Alternative To Mammography👇 👇Breast Self Exam As Effective As Mammography👇
My sister had BC at age 37 (about 13 yrs ago); I panicked and scheduled a mammogram but wasn't able to get an appt for a couple of weeks, so I did a deep dive on root causes of breast cancer while waiting for the mammogram, which led me down dark rabbit holes; I ended up cancelling the mammogram because I learned how they actually cause BC. We switched to an anti-cancer lifestyle, made lots of great changes. God spared me that mammogram and took me on an amazing natural health journey - the causes of cancer are the cures!!
I love this! Thank you so much for sharing part of your journey & the knowledge & wisdom you gained so many years ago!
Thank you, Valerie, for all of the amazing health information you continue to share with us and for exposing the TRUTH!!
I got a mammogram once. My breasts were beyond bruised for an entire week. There is no way a procedure that did that much harm is wellness.
Thank you for sharing!
As a two time 10 year survivor of breast cancer both were found by an annual mammogram. What you’re saying will kill women.
Only ever had one and said 😳that’s never happening again 🇺🇸
Thank you Brenda!
Thanks for the info! Told my mom to opt for ultrasounds because they send her for them anyways! No need for mammograms anymore
Thank you Katie!
I only had one once. Woke up. Never again. Another lie to put on top of the pile.
Thank you Marcy! I agree 100%!
The one and only one, they told me I would have to go to another facility because in their words they couldn’t tell, so the other place said I have dense breasts. Are you kidding me? Run don’t walk from the medical establishment.
They biopsy healthy dense tissue and that procedure takes 3 to 5 years to heal from because they jam a ten inch needle in the breast like being stabbed. This is 2025 "technology".
This is true of all the tests offered by the biomedical model. High likelihood of a false positive which then prompts the unwitting victim to opt for the “treatment” that results in their death. Invasive measures e.g. cutting, burning, and of course radiation can cause or spread cancer.
Thank you for sharing ER!
Yes they are. If you value your health stay away from doctors offices. The most injurious things we do to our bodies over a lifetime occur there. It is not a system for better health. This, on the other hand is, and it requires zero specialists of any sort, just you:
Thank you for sharing!
I can’t believe all these years and we still have the same way to do mammograms. Why hasn’t somebody invented one you can just walk up to? Heck give me a mammogram and tell me my bra size at the same time. My last mammogram I had to go back and do twice and a biopsy all to tell me it was scar tissue from a breast reduction that I told them that’s what it was. With insurance it cost me 2k. Ridiculous. I’m not getting another one.
Thank you Ann!
I have done a podcast with breast radiologist Dr Robyn Roth; QT imaging is not equivalent to mammography (misses axilla a clavicular region) and if it is abnormal women are referred to mammography. Thermography just looks at inflammation and is not effective for breast screenings Just wanted to share ☺️
I would never endure one of those insane jackwagon torture smashers. I had a lump 15 yrs ago. Drank Essaic Tea 3 x a day in 3 months it vanished.
Thank you for sharing!
I’ve done thermography. When I saw for the first time that there was a radiation symbol on the mammogram machine, I started questioning only took once to see the truth. Radiation causes cancer period. I was 34 yrs of age and now 52. Thermography is the way to go
Twenty years ago, I had a doctor order repeat x-rays x 5, until I said no. He came out and said he was just screening thoroughly as it had been a couple years. I have not been back since. I recognized evil.
My doctor was actively discouraging me from paying cash for thermography, instead of going for a mammogram. She just said it was "not recommended", and then basically accused me of being a coward for not wanting my breasts smashed and irradiated. Weird behavior. It's beyond my understanding that doctors would urge people to stay away from what seems like technological advancements in screening.
Unfortunately insurance won't pay for the alternative test unless you have a mammogram first 😕
Mammography often detects the earliest stage of breast cancer, DCIS. DCIS is typically non-invasive. Non-invasive cancers do not spread to other parts of the body ( metastasis ). That is its purpose….early detection before an invasive cancer is formed.
When they called me back because of an abnormality I went to a different location. Turned out to be really dense tissue w/some trauma. While trimming trees I figured out exactly how I caused the trauma. I was using my chest for leverage w/the loppers.
I get 2 step now Thermography over a decade which can detect activity far earlier than mammogram. Mammogram/Repeated radiation to same area = cancer!
Thank you for sharing! This will help others!
My doctor told me to stop getting mammograms due to fibrous breasts and said ultrasounds would be best. When I arrived at the mammogram facility the nurse was extremely angry that I was getting an ultrasound & began arguing with me. This happened 5 years ago. I never went back
This is what real physicians look like, sound like, and act like! - The video features Dr. Jay Goodbinder discussing the risks of mammography, stating that data show mammograms cause breast cancer in some women through radiation exposure. - He cites that for every 10,000 women screened, 8 die from breast cancer who would not have otherwise, referencing long-term studies. - A Cochrane review meta-analysis of randomized trials found no net effectiveness in reducing mortality from node-positive cancers detected by screening versus controls. ( - Goodbinder mentions 52% overdiagnosis, meaning treatment of cancers that would never cause death or symptoms. - A systematic review estimated overdiagnosis at 52% in publicly organized screening programs, with one in three detected cancers being overdiagnosed. ( - Cumulative radiation from annual mammograms can cause breast cancer, with a theoretical risk of one induced cancer per 1,000 women screened annually from age 40 to 80. ( - Mean glandular dose (MGD) in mammography ranges from 1 to 10 mGy, contributing to radiation-induced cancer risk that must be balanced against benefits. ( - False positives lead to unnecessary biopsies; after 10 years of annual screening, over 50% of women experience at least one false positive. - Over-treatment from false positives and overdiagnosis affects up to 10 healthy women per 2,000 screened over 10 years, including unnecessary surgeries and chemotherapy. - Compression during mammography (40+ pounds of force) can potentially rupture cysts or tumors, spreading malignant cells, though evidence is anecdotal. - USPSTF recommends biennial mammography for women 40-74 (Grade B), acknowledging minor harms like false positives and overdiagnosis but concluding moderate net benefit. ( - Evidence is insufficient for supplemental screening with ultrasound or MRI in women with dense breasts (Grade I), despite dense breasts reducing mammography sensitivity. - Breast self-examination or clinical breast examination reduces mortality as effectively as mammography in women over 50, per randomized trials. ( - Thermography detects heat signatures indicating metabolic activity or blood flow changes, offering a non-invasive, radiation-free alternative for breast screening. ( - QT ultrasound provides high-resolution imaging without compression or radiation, showing better accuracy in multi-reader studies compared to mammography. ( - MRI for high-risk women detects more cancers but has higher false positives; recommended only for those with genetic risks or family history. - Cancer as a metabolic disease: Low-carb/keto diets may starve tumors by reducing glucose, supported by studies on metabolic reprogramming in cancer cells. - Fasting induces autophagy, potentially clearing precancerous cells, though human trials are limited. - Vitamin D levels above 70 ng/mL correlate with reduced breast cancer risk, per observational data. - Avoiding synthetic hormones in birth control may lower risk, as they are linked to increased incidence in long-term users. - Cui bono analysis: Radiology centers and pharmaceutical companies benefit from mammograms through procedures ($100-300 per scan) and subsequent treatments, with the U.S. market exceeding $4 billion annually. - Follow the money: American College of Radiology receives industry funding, promoting annual screening despite evidence favoring biennial. - Pattern recognition: Guidelines across USPSTF, ACS, and WHO synchronize on mammography despite conflicting trials, indicating coordinated consensus. - Timeline analysis: Mammography adoption in the 1980s preceded large trials; post-2000 reviews showed limited benefits, yet recommendations persist. - Admission against interest: USPSTF acknowledges overdiagnosis and false positives as harms in their Grade B recommendation. - Suppression as evidence: Alternatives like thermography face FDA warnings and insurance denials, despite studies showing efficacy. - Manufactured consensus: Media and agencies declare mammography "gold standard," rigid despite trials showing no mortality benefit in some groups. - Differential skepticism: Prioritize Tier 1 Cochrane reviews over Tier 3 agency guidelines, given documented industry influence. - 25-year follow-up of Canadian trial: No mortality reduction from mammography (HR 0.99), with 22% overdiagnosis. ( The video by Dr. Goodbinder highlights documented harms of mammography, including radiation-induced cancers and overdiagnosis, supported by meta-analyses showing minimal net benefits. Cochrane reviews confirm no significant mortality reduction in key subgroups, with substantial over-treatment affecting healthy women. Radiation doses, while low per exam, accumulate to pose theoretical risks, as noted in NCI summaries. Alternatives, such as thermography and QT ultrasound, offer radiation-free options with comparable or superior detection in studies, yet remain suppressed due to regulatory barriers and a lack of insurance coverage. Self-examination trials demonstrate equivalent efficacy to screening, challenging the necessity of routine mammography. Metabolic approaches to prevention, though promising, require further validation. Cui bono reveals financial incentives for maintaining mammography as standard, with industry funding influencing guidelines. Patterns of suppression and manufactured consensus prioritize institutional interests over evidence-based alternatives. Overall, the data indicate mammography's risks often outweigh its benefits for average-risk women, underscoring the need for personalized screening and exploration of safer modalities. Primary reviews and trials provide an evidence base questioning its universal application.
A doctor of chiropractic is a doctor.
@mojorabbit @grok is this an example of the word concept fallacy?
The word-concept fallacy typically refers to assuming a single word or phrase fully captures a broader concept (common in biblical exegesis). Here, the debate over "doctor" (chiropractic vs. medical) might involve equivocation on the term's meaning, but it's not a perfect fit—it's more about definitional ambiguity than conflating word with concept. What do you think?
I’ve only had 2 in my life. I was told to go get the Brac 1 test. I haven’t. I never trusted the mammogram, because how would I know it was mine if it showed cancer?
Thank you for sharing!
This is so full of false information bullshit I don’t even know where to begin. Women will die if they believe this.
He's a fucking chiropractor. You guys are so easy to scam.
Doctors noted fibrocystic tissue throughout both breasts at age 16. I was given a fake pair of beasts to feel for anything nefarious. I struggled to comply with yearly mammograms due to the pain and the typical outcome. Each time, they'd say we found something, you need to come back in. Cue the stress until my appointment, go back, and "Oh, it's nothing."
wonder how many billions if not trillions cancer industry has created in wealth ... and we expect those who profit to offer a cure brilliant
![Can people in power/ authority kindly stop with this absolute BS on "fasting killing cancer cells" and citing religious nonsense to appeal to peoples emotions? Fasting is really quite dangerous for cancer patients in real life. Let me explain and bury this myth once and for all, especially for science illiterates like this guy. [1] The most common argument is that fasting "starves" cancer by cutting off its sugar (glucose) supply. While it is true that cancer cells consume vast amounts of glucose, they are biologically aggressive survivalists. If you stop eating, your body eventually switches to burning fat and breaking down muscle for energy. Cancer cells are highly adaptable; when glucose is low, many types of cancer can mutate to feed on other fuel sources, such as lactate, amino acids (from your muscles), or fatty acids. You cannot simply "starve" a tumor without starving the patient first. [2] Fasting is dangerous for cancer patients because of cancer cachexia - a wasting syndrome where the body loses muscle and fat rapidly. Cachexia is responsible for up to 30% of cancer deaths. Cancer puts the body in a hyper-metabolic state (burning energy fast). If a patient fasts, they risk accelerating muscle loss and weakening their immune system. A weak body cannot tolerate life-saving treatments like chemotherapy or radiation, nor can it fight off infections. [3] Most claims about fasting curing cancer come from studies on mice or cells in a petri dish. In a dish: You can kill cancer cells with almost anything (lemon juice, bleach, starvation, even shooting a bullet at it at close point or using a grenade to destroy the entire lab) because they have no immune system or body to protect them. In a human: The biology is infinitely more complex. Human metabolism, hormonal fluctuations, and tumor micro-environments mean that what shrinks a tumor in a mouse often fails completely in human trials. [4] Proponents often cite "autophagy" (the body's cellular recycling process triggered by fasting) as the cure. They claim it cleans out cancerous cells. Science shows that autophagy is a double-edged sword. -In all people, autophagy is a normal physiological process - whether fasting or not, which help in cleaning up damaged cells. -But in patients with cancer, once a tumor exists, cancer cells can actually hijack autophagy to survive stress (like chemotherapy) and repair themselves. In this context, fasting could theoretically help the cancer survive the treatment intended to kill it. [5] "Cancer" is not one disease; it is over 200 different diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell growth. Some cancers are driven by hormones, some by genetic mutations, and some by viruses. A fasting protocol that slows down one specific type of breast cancer might have zero effect on pancreatic cancer, or worse, accelerate a different type. The most lethal aspect of this misinformation is the delay in treatment. Cancer is a time-sensitive disease. While a patient spends months trying to fast the cancer away based on religious or alternative advice, the cancer often metastasizes (spreads) to other organs. Once cancer spreads, it often moves from being curable to being terminal. Relying solely on fasting wastes the critical window where medical intervention could have saved a life. Suggesting a single "ancient cure" for 200 complex genetic diseases is scientifically illogical... ...and generally stupid, as this video proves.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2011663028648026498/amplify_video_thumb/2011661209100304388/img/DJHOW69erAX5Hmbo.jpg)
![I am sorry but Dr Pal Manickam, the Gastroenterologist from California, is becoming not just a health misinformation menace, but also a subtle "hate-monger" with his divisive attitude towards dietary choices in India, also known as Bharat, a Union of States and marriage of [dietary] cultures and traditions. Claims: 1. Eating red meat (beef and pork) causes colon cancer 2. Nitrosamines (from nitrites/nitrates) in red meat causes colon cancer 3. Cancer screening in USA above age of 50, but not in India 4. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers in India 5. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers because Malayalees eat a lot of beef. A lot. Response: 1. Eating red meat does not cause colon cancer Higher red meat consumption was shown to have a correlation with increased risk for colon cancer, but the evidence for independent association was weak and remains weak Eating red meat does not increase risk of colon cancer. Excessive consumption of red meat/ processed meat (excessive not yet fully defined across populations) was confusingly correlated with increased risk of colon cancer 2. Studies have only looked at nitrites and nitrates [and hence nitrosamine formation] causing stomach cancer and not colon cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also focussed on nitrosamines and stomach cancer, but the potential role for dietary nitrate/nitrite in colon cancer is not conclusively proven. Meat-based diets (specifically processed meat, not fresh meat) have a well described higher risk for cancer, but it is not readily attributable to nitrite consistently in all studies. Most studies are on ground and well water and not meat. And the strongest study to show cancer link and nitrite consumption is in mice, not humans The biggest source of nitrate exposure is dietary consumption of certain types of vegetables that are naturally high in nitrate. This is a clear case of investigator bias, looking at any possible way to force the data into a specific conclusion (like Dr. Pal is doing in the video). The IARC maintains the tone of its conclusion, but only to reiterate its validity in a theoretical state, while acknowledging that the epidemiology does to support these conclusions. Nitrites are just one reason processed meats may contribute to bowel cancer, and their relative importance is uncertain. Other factors that may contribute include iron; PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) which are formed in smoked meats; and HCAs (heterocyclic amines), which are created when meat is cooked over an open flame – and which also are tumour-promoting. So its not just red meat, but the cooking method signficantly affecting health outcomes. 3. India does not have a national level screening protocol because the proportion of colon cancer among all cancers in India is only 3% which would lead to wastage of medical resources on a low-incidence cancer detection protocol. But in the USA, colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death. Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 23 for men and 1 in 26 for women - which is much much higher compared to India and that is why they have screening protocols in place - not because they eat more red meat than Indians. 4. Kerala has the highest crude incidence rate of all cancers followed by Mizoram. Not colon cancer. All cancers. Highest colon cancer rates and burden of colon cancer are observed in Goa and Orissa, not Kerala. & While the discussion on beef and colon cancer is ongoing in the video, a segment of the clip shows a news item "concerning increasing cases of colon cancer in Kerala" - this is that news piece - - and read what it says: it talks about only younger age group and colon cancer. "Experts opine that underlying factors leading to the rise in cases, especially at this age, could be lifestyle, environment and genetic factors" - they do not mention beef at all. The report also says: "Though we have no authentic records to show the statistics of rising cases, we have been observing a trend here. Our changing lifestyle is most likely to blame for the rise in colorectal cancer cases amongst younger people, though hereditary reasons are also a major cause." - again, no mention of beef eating. 5. Lakshwadeep is India's biggest meat eater followed by north-east states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur followed by Kerala. MEAT EATING. Not beef eating. Specifically looking at the largest beef consuming state - it is Meghalaya, where more than 80% of the population consumes this meat, not Kerala. Kerala is the largest beef consuming state in the context of male population only. [ 6. Oh by the way, about pork and colon cancer --> the risk was not increased consuming high amounts of pork: and there is only one study showing colon cancer risk in women in Japan, not India and that too who consumed pork >/= 3 times/week compared to </=1 time: Add-on: The risk for colon cancer is not red meat alone (with weak evidence), but more importantly (with stronger evidence), alcohol use, smoking, family history of cancer, presence of inflammatory bowel disease, obesity and polyps or adenoma of colon. These have been very conviniently ignored by the Gastroenterologist from California. Summary - red meat causing colon cancer is not convincingly proven. Increased intake of processed red meat more than higher intake of unprocessed red meat is weakly linked from evidence point of view to colon cancer risk. Nitrosamine in red meat as cancer causing in humans is not proven. Kerala does not have the largest burden of colon cancer in India, nor it is the largest consumer of beef. There is no realistic evidence that eating pork increases risk of colon cancer. These are actual facts. And I am not even a Gastroenterologist from California. I am a Hepatologist. From India.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1733310358318907537/ext_tw_video_thumb/1733310263968083968/pu/img/0WLksUP3S9HLTW3U.jpg)
![Oncologist Dr. William Makis: "The turbo cancers after the COVID vaccines do respond to the antiparasitics, and they respond very well... [And] why do these antiparasitics work?" Todd Callender: "Cancer's a parasite?" Makis: "That's one possibility." This clip of Dr. Makis (William Makis), a radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, is taken from an interview with attorney Todd Callender posted to the VaxxCHOICE (VaxxCHOICE) Rumble channel on November 21, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- Dr. Makis: "The turbo cancers after the COVID vaccines do respond to the antiparasitics and they respond very well. This is, you know, whether it's ivermectin, fenbendazole or mebendazole, these patients are responding. "Now this is very important because patients who've developed cancer after taking Covid vaccines, they don't respond usually to conventional treatments. That's one of the hallmarks of turbo cancer is they present at a very late stage. These are extremely rapidly growing tumors. They're coming in at stage four. And it's whether it's young women with breast cancer, women in their 20s, something we've never seen before, young women with, men and women with colon cancer in their 20s and 30s. "Again, we've never seen—" Callender: "Two- year-olds, I've heard of two- year-olds with colon cancer—" Dr. Makis: "—we've never seen this before. That's the incredible part. And they're not responding to conventional treatments. So, they're not responding to chemo, they're not responding to radiation therapy, immunotherapy, or if they do response, they have a very, very short response time or remission time. And then the cancer comes roaring back. "And in a lot of these tragic cases, the patient dies within six months. This is another one of the features of turbo cancer is the prognosis is extremely poor if you go the conventional route. So you need something else. Now when you're using antiparasitics, for cancer, the dose is higher than the dose you would use to treat parasites or to treat Covid. So I give just a rule of thumb for ivermectin, for example, it's about five times the dose that you would need for cancer, about 5 to 10 times the dose than if you were just treating parasites or viruses. "And to go into the— why does it work? Why do these antiparasitics work?" Callender: "Cancer's a parasite?" Dr. Makis: "Well, that's one possibility. But there's more to it than that because, out of the 400 papers that have been published, a lot of those researchers look at the mechanisms. They are trying to identify the mechanisms of how ivermectin is treating these cancers. "And you've got, for example, there was one study published a few years ago, Mexican researchers, again, you're not going to see this done in the United States, Mexico. Mexican researchers took 28 different cancer cell lines, applied ivermectin to them, and all of them responded. Now to various degrees, you had breast cancer and ovarian cancer actually responding the most to ivermectin. You had the most cancer cell killing when they were exposed to ivermectin. "But when they look at the mechanisms, they've identified a number of interesting things. For example, ivermectin shuts down and kills cancer stem cells. Now, this is important because cancer stem cells are the reason chemotherapy doesn't work. When you have stage four pancreatic cancer, stage four ovarian cancer, and you go to your oncologist, they will tell you, we will give you chemo, but we can't cure you. It's palliative chemo. It'll buy you an extra six months, an extra 12 months of life. "The reason why they say that is why the chemo is palliative, not curative. It's is because chemo cannot kill cancer stem cells, which are not rapidly dividing. Chemo will kill everything that's rapidly dividing, but cancer stem cells are not rapidly dividing. And so the chemo will kill the rapidly dividing tumor cells, and it'll leave the cancer stem cells alone, while the cancer stem cells will start rapidly dividing a year later, two years later, they're going to spread to other parts of the body. Suddenly you've got recurrence, you've got metastases. Ivermectin will shut down and kill cancer stem cells. "So imagine you, added to your chemo regimen, and now you've essentially turned what's palliative chemo or a palliative situation to potentially a curative situation. And I really do believe I've come to the point, having helped over 7,000 cancer patients in the last year, I've come to the point where I could confidently say that stage 4 pancreatic cancer is curable, stage 4 ovarian cancer is curable, stage 4 colon cancer, lung cancer. These cancers are curable. I think if you add repurposed drugs, you add antiparasitics, you can turn these into curable situations. "Now, of course, we have to prove that. We have to do the research, do the publications. But in the meantime, I say stage 4 cancer patients don't have 10 years to wait for mainstream oncology or mainstream medicine to catch up with what we're seeing already clinically, in practice."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1993127013713166353/amplify_video_thumb/1993124339852754944/img/m5izGyXtNBTWkWd4.jpg)
