TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

For every 10,000 people given a mammogram, eight will die who wouldn't have from breast cancer. There is a 52% overdiagnosis rate with mammography, meaning many are treated unnecessarily. Safer options include ultrasound, which is definitive and radiation-free, and thermograms to detect metabolic activity. The speaker questions why annual mammograms are recommended, especially for those with dense breast tissue, as radiation from mammograms can cause cancer. A Cochrane review showed a zero net effectiveness rating for mammograms in node-positive cancers. The speaker suggests ultrasound and thermograms should be the standard.

For every 10,000 people given a mammogram, eight will die who wouldn't have from breast cancer. There's a 52% overdiagnosis rate with mammography, meaning many are treated unnecessarily. Ultrasound is definitive and avoids radiation. Thermograms detect metabolic activity and blood flow, followed by ultrasound if needed. Mammogram radiation can cause breast cancer, especially in those with dense tissue. A Cochrane review showed zero net effectiveness for mammograms in node-positive cancer cases versus controls. Ultrasound and thermograms should be the standard.

This is a particularly interesting one; 'X rays are known to cause look at that. Not solve it.' They also claim, 'Also, they weaken the patient, and the patient often dies from the X-ray damage rather than from the statistics show that the patient who no longer receives the treatments live just as long or longer than those who subject themselves to all of this.' The approach proposed is to 'Treat the symptom of the tumor rather than the actual addressing the root cause.' The speaker concludes: 'This is a very powerful book that I highly recommend everybody look into.'

Cancer is not a disease but a survival mechanism to house toxins. The tumor is created to protect the body by containing toxins. Biopsies are unnecessary as treatment remains the same whether the tumor is cancerous or not. People often die from cancer treatment rather than cancer itself. The healthcare system profits from sick individuals, leading to unnecessary procedures like biopsies that can worsen the situation.

There's no such thing as biopsy spreading cancer. They say that out loud, but they have not even one scientific study to show for that, whereas I have 50 to show that they do spread cancer. They just believe so strongly and so blindly what they were told, and they're afraid of the truth because it means that for years and years and years, doctors have been killing people through biopsies. Be very careful. Never do a prostate biopsy. Never do a breast biopsy. There are better ways. You don't need the mammogram with its own radiation. You don't need biopsy to tell you if it's cancer or not. You can be 99% sure just by doing an ultrasound with a technician who knows what she is doing.

A speaker asserts that colonoscopy has never been proven to reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal cancer in the population. They claim that society is spending many, many billions of dollars on a test that has never been proven to reduce the disease for which it is intended. They further state that, in reality, far greater numbers of people are suffering detrimental effects and adverse reactions to the colonoscopy procedure than the number of people who are actually diagnosed with colorectal cancer. The speaker emphasizes that, if about fifty five thousand are diagnosed every year as suffering from the condition, over seventy thousand are suffering from the horrific effects, adverse effects of the actual procedure called colonoscopy. In their view, society is paying a substantial amount for this situation. The speaker then presents a conclusion that there is an alternative to colonoscopy. They identify this alternative as being a test called M2PK. This assertion introduces an option they believe should be considered as an alternative to the conventional screening method discussed. The overall message conveyed is that the widely used screening method of colonoscopy has not demonstrated population-level mortality or morbidity benefits for colorectal cancer, accompanied by a large burden of adverse effects, and that the M2PK test represents another approach to address the issue.

According to the speaker, screening mammograms offer no survival advantage. Screening 2,000 women over ten years may save one life, but will cause ten to twenty women to be unnecessarily treated for breast cancer due to overdiagnosis, where mammograms detect conditions that would never become life-threatening. Treating women for breast cancer increases their risk of cardiovascular, neurodegenerative diseases, and osteoporosis, already primary threats to women's lives. The speaker suggests the system benefits most from mammogram screenings. They recommend a comprehensive screening plan including self-breast exams, the ARIA Tears test (a biological test for inflammatory precursors of breast cancer), QT imaging, and ultrasound as safe and effective alternatives that avoid unnecessary radiation, biopsies, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment.

"In all the autopsy I've done of cancer patients, not one of them died of cancer. They died of liver failure, they died of cardiac failure, renal failure, all due to chemotherapy." "We got a patient that had been through chemo they had cooked her liver and cooked her kidneys." "We looked at the blood work and realized she had no organ function to speak of left." "And I said we can make her more comfortable but the radiation treatment that they used on her has actually destroyed her organs." "She'd been given three weeks, we gave her six months and she got time to say goodbye to her family." "I'm doing the death certificate and I don't know what to write for cause of death." "You might try writing the truth for a change." "And she wrote radiation poisoning, cause of death."

According to the speaker, mammograms cause harm, killing eight people out of every 10,000 screened who would not have died from breast cancer otherwise. The speaker claims there is a 52% overdiagnosis rate with mammography, leading to unnecessary treatment. They suggest ultrasound, which they say is definitive and radiation-free, and thermography as safer alternatives. Thermography detects metabolic activity and blood flow, followed by ultrasound if needed. The speaker questions the yearly recommendation of mammograms, especially for women with dense breast tissue, because the radiation may cause cancer. They cite a Cochrane review indicating zero net effectiveness for mammogram screenings in node-positive cancers. The speaker recommends ultrasound and thermogram as the standard.

The speaker argues that there has been manipulation of science and a dangerous phenomenon called overdiagnosis that has affected millions of women, particularly in breast cancer, over the last thirty years. Citing a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, the speaker claims that over the past three decades in the United States, one point three million women were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer that would never have caused harm. This condition is described as ductal carcinoma in situ, or stage zero cancer, which the speaker asserts was equated with actual cancer. According to the speaker, these diagnoses led to standard treatments such as mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation, with chemotherapy, and then follow-up hormone-suppressive therapies like tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor (arimidex). The speaker contends that many women were subjected to these interventions for cancers that would not have caused harm, and therefore experienced the associated physical, psychological, and social burdens. The speaker characterizes the consequence as a form of medical holocaust, asserting that women were diagnosed with a cancer they did not have, underwent treatment, and endured stigma and psychospiritual stress as a result. Additionally, it is claimed that the healthcare industry told these women that they were saved or that their lives were extended, but the speaker asserts the opposite outcome occurred. A further claim is that these women identify with the aggressor in a manner likened to Stockholm syndrome. The speaker notes that millions participate in breast cancer awareness marches, seemingly unaware that the events are funded by corporations that profit from the drugs used to treat breast cancer. In summary, the speaker presents a narrative in which overdiagnosis led to widespread unnecessary cancer treatments, causing harm to a large population of women, while the industry purportedly benefited financially from the drugs and treatments administered. The remarks connect the phenomenon to broader concerns about the motives of the pharmaceutical and medical industries and the messaging surrounding breast cancer awareness campaigns.

I want to address why I’ve chosen not to get a mammogram. In nursing school, I learned not to deeply palpate a mass due to the risk of spreading infection or causing a cancerous mass to rupture and metastasize. It doesn’t make sense to compress a lump between plates, as that could lead to further issues. Research shows that people often die from metastasis rather than the primary tumor, and cancer treatments can cause metastasis. Additionally, I’m concerned about the radiation exposure from mammograms, as breast tissue is sensitive. I prefer to live a toxic-free lifestyle and remain hopeful, despite the rising cancer rates and reports of aggressive cancers. I encourage everyone to do their own research on this topic.

Speaker 0: Medicine follows a chain from diagnosis to prognosis. If the diagnosis is misdiagnosed as a genetic disease, the prognosis won’t match what’s actually happening. Speaker 1: The ultimate approach is to look under the microscope at a biopsy. People rely on staging—stage one, two, three, four—a system used for over a hundred years. There are also stage zero ideas where there might be something or nothing. Then they remove breasts, use toxins, and do aggressive treatments to some patients. They define stage four, but what does that really mean? We look at tissue removed from the body, examine it under a microscope, and assess how many mitotic figures there are and how crowded the cells are. The pathologist makes a decision, which is passed to the surgeon or oncologist to tell the patient they have this kind of disease, stage three or stage four, depending on cell crowding and mitotic figures. The problem, which has persisted for decades, is that we take a biopsy of a tumor—a section of it—and the pathologist quickly decides. Then we stick the patient with something that can actually make things worse and spread the disease. I have dozens of articles showing that biopsies from breast, colon, liver, and lung can spread the tumor through the body, creating medicine. Why? I say: don’t do anything. Don’t poke the bear. Shrink it down, make it weak, then come in and take the whole thing out. Why stick it for nothing? Just remove the whole thing after you shrink it with metabolic therapy. Then what they say is, this is not an aggressive tumor. Yes, because we shrunk it a lot. If you had stabbed it initially, it might have said it would kill you. But you have to know the biology: you don’t poke the bear; you take the food away from it. It becomes docile, you can cut it out, then follow with non-invasive imaging. We have non-invasive imaging—CT, PET, MRIs—and you can start looking at things before you poke them. If it goes away, why poke it in the first place? So we have all these tools available, but they aren’t used in the correct order or way. Once the knowledge comes out, people will realize what I’m saying and start doing things the right way.

The problem with a biopsy is this. Now it spreads all over the place. So you do spread it. But what they're not telling you is that the research is showing that if you take these drugs, you're almost guaranteeing metastasis. If you did a biopsy and or a surgery, you're gonna get metastasis. Now if you add high dose chemo, you're get metastasis. If you do radiation, you're gonna get metastasis. What they're looking at is giving you a short term reduction of the primary, and then you think, oh, I'm in remission. Nine months later, it would came back. The federal, the FDA will have approved it. Your insurance will pay for it. It's the right thing to do. And you're gonna do that. It's also part of the sales team. It's part of the sales technique.

Medical intervention is a leading cause of death in the United States, claiming around a million lives annually. Many people trust their doctors without realizing that a significant portion of medical education is based on unscientific principles. The current medical system is outdated and needs a complete overhaul. The idea of treating illness with harmful substances is flawed, yet it persists because it generates substantial profits for pharmaceutical companies, which wield significant influence.

Cancer is a symptom and a tumor for example is nothing else in the approach of the body to keep us alive. We have so many toxins in our system that would kill us so the body builds a bubble, a bucket, a tumor, and collects all these poisons and basically keeps the poisons on one spot where they don't do harm. That's a tumor. So the cancer is basically your friend. The tumor is working on keeping you alive. This view warns that a needle biopsy can pinch into this tumor and release the toxins into the system and suddenly you have a very fast growing, very aggressive cancer that you didn't have before the needle biopsy. The same problem occurs with mammography. They put 50 pounds of pressure on the breast. If the lymph node is ready to burst, that cannot be a good thing. Usually it bursts and that's what causes cancer. Not just two percent; "mammography's can cause cancer just by the pressure that's applied."

Speaker 0 argues against colonoscopy, calling it far too dangerous for this information. He describes colonoscopy as taking a six-foot-plus tube and ramming it up the body, with anesthesia and sedation. He states that seven percent of people who have this exam with biopsies experience major serious complications, and about one in a thousand have a perforation of the colon, with about half of these people dying. He asserts that what you are doing is saving a life with colonoscopy while at the same time you are killing about the same number of people and harming many others. He concludes that he does not recommend colonoscopy. If you accept colonoscopy, he says you are saying to yourself and your family that you are willing to risk your life today for the theoretical possibility that you won't die of colon cancer in ten, twenty, or thirty years, describing this as a major bet.

Iatrogenic refers to unintentional harm caused by a physician's words or therapy. The speaker claims that modern medicine, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, infectionology, bacteriology, and virology are a for-profit iatrogenic death cult. They argue that these fields propagate debunked myths like bacterial infection, germ warfare, and contagious viruses based on the unproven germ theory. The speaker also criticizes Hollywood for promoting dystopian films about imaginary viruses. They conclude by stating that germ theory is fictional and that no isolated virus particle has been proven to cause disease.

Mammograms can produce cancer because they involve squashing the breasts, which are very sensitive. This squashing causes pain, which indicates inflammation. Inflammation involves increased blood flow and leaking blood vessels to bring in white blood cells and oxygen. The signs of inflammation are that the area is red, hot, painful, and swollen. Mammograms irradiate inflamed, acutely injured tissue with ionizing radiation. This process is not done with prostates or testicles, only breasts. The speaker believes this is a male-dominated madness.

Mammograms as a screening practice are not recommended because they do terrible harm. The Cochrane Collaboration also advises against mammograms. The US Preventative Services Task Force suggests mammograms for women over 50 only after a thorough discussion of the benefits and risks, highlighting overdiagnosis as a risk. Screening 2,000 women with mammograms saves one life but diagnoses 5-50 women with breast cancer they would have never known they had or died from, turning them into cancer victims. It also causes 600-1000 of the 2,000 women to undergo further testing and treatment. Mammograms rarely save lives and always do harm, so they should not be done as a screening tool.

A tumor is a bubble the body builds to collect toxins and keep them in one spot, preventing harm. Cancer is a symptom, not an illness, and is essentially your friend. A needle biopsy can release toxins into the system, causing a fast-growing, aggressive cancer that wasn't present before. Similarly, mammography, which applies 50 pounds of pressure to the breast, can cause a lymph node full of toxins to burst, leading to cancer. Each mammography raises cancer risk by two percent and can directly cause cancer due to the applied pressure.

Biopsies spread cancer, and there are 50 scientific studies to prove it. Doctors have been killing people for years through biopsies, but they blame the cancer instead of the metastasis caused by the biopsy. Therefore, one should never do a prostate or breast biopsy. There are better ways to determine if it's cancer. Mammograms are unnecessary because of their radiation. An ultrasound with a skilled technician can provide 99% certainty.

The only definitive way to diagnose cancer is through a biopsy. However, biopsies can disrupt the tumor's protective sheath, potentially causing it to spread. A patient experienced this firsthand after a biopsy led to the emergence of multiple tumors. While a histological diagnosis from a pathologist identifies the cancer type, it often serves as a justification for specific drug treatments, which are approved by the FDA and covered by insurance. Unfortunately, research indicates that these treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation, often lead to metastasis. Patients may initially feel a sense of remission, but cancer frequently returns within months.

Chemotherapy can kill any cell, not just cancer cells. If those handling chemotherapy must wear hazmat suits because it's toxic, why give it to someone already sick? It's like using napalm for an ant problem; you might kill the ants, but you'll destroy everything else, including the healthy cells. Radiation, like chemotherapy, is dangerous. X-rays have warning signs because radiation damages DNA, which can potentially cause cancer. The speaker questions why a therapy known to create cancer is used to treat cancer.

Many cancer survivors who undergo standard treatments like radiation and chemo suffer immensely, paying a high price for their survival. They may experience ailments and debilities resulting from toxic treatments, surgical mutilations, high-dose poisons, and radiation. Cancer survivors may face psychological and neuropsychiatric problems, hormonal imbalances, microbiome issues, and metabolic homeostasis problems that they didn't have before treatment. Some newer treatments can kill patients faster than the disease itself, with the hope of a positive response. Many people suffer chronic problems for the rest of their lives or don't live as long as they could have without the treatments. The speaker believes that managing cancer doesn't require such toxic treatments, viewing the situation as a massive tragedy.

Speaker 0 highlights that root canals and wisdom teeth removal are common procedures but alleges there are important things not disclosed. The speaker argues that teeth are not separate from the rest of the body; they are living organs with nerves, blood supply, and communication with the body. If you had a dead organ inside you, you wouldn’t leave it there, yet the speaker claims that with a root canal, that is exactly what happens. The speaker references traditional Chinese medicine, stating that each tooth is connected through meridians to specific organ systems in the body. Therefore, when a root canal is performed and a dead tooth remains in the mouth, some believe that those entire meridians become compromised, and chronic health issues can sometimes bubble up. The speaker asserts that no one is connecting those health issues with a dead organ sitting inside the mouth. Regarding wisdom teeth, the speaker says you’re not just getting teeth pulled when they’re removed. Those wisdom teeth contain powerful stem cells that are harvested, researched, and sold for massive profit. The speaker notes the irony in how this is not typically disclosed when people are having their teeth removed and billed. The speaker contends that people are left wondering why chronic issues never resolve, emphasizing that the mouth is not separate from the body and is one of the main gateways. The speaker suggests that nothing about this feels accidental, though acknowledges the possibility of being labeled a conspiracy theorist. Finally, the speaker invites viewers to learn how to support the whole body outside of the system and states, if you want to learn, to comment “heal now.”