“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Involved in the arguments are the leading cancer investigative organizations in the country. For example: Scientific advisers to the government’s National Cancer Institute, which is conducting elaborate studies of many thousands of women of varying ages, have called for a halt to the routine screening of younger women. These scientists are on record as stating that such X-raying may cause more breast cancer than it cures. Many millions of dollars, and much time and effort, have been and are being given to such research programs. It will be difficult to alter those studies because of entrenched belief systems. Even the economic factors become important: Beside the great sums involved in the “official” programs, for instance, many private radiologists have also found mammography screening to be quite profitable.

Even when resorted to, prophylactic mastectomies are not foolproof, for a few women have still developed cancer in the area of the nipple. What Jane and I are very curious about, however, is how many “statistically vulnerable” women submitted to operations they didn’t need — for surely a significant number of them wouldn’t have developed cancer in the first place. The percentage is unknowable, of course. If it could be shown that most of the “high risk” women would get cancer, there wouldn’t be arguments about whether such mastectomies are of general value. As things are, though, because of the controversy women once again end up confused as to who is right and what to do. Large scale studies, including one by the National Cancer Institute, are planned to explore the whole question of prophylactic mastectomies.