Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Daniel Corcos Profile picture
@daniel_corcos
Jan 20, 2020 • 6 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X
@GENES_PK
1) BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes code for proteins involved in the repair of double-strand DNA breaks, the damage caused by ionizing radiation, including X-ray. Unfortunately, for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers the NCCN guideline is mammography screening from age 30.
2) This is based on flawed articles suggesting an absence of risk.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16648044
In this article the bias comes from the selection of index cases.
3) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25082516
In this one, the no-mammography group is likely to have mammography after genetic diagnosis, and this results in the comparison of prevalent screening to incident screening.
4) On the contrary, an unbiased study has shown a strong increase in breast cancer incidence after genetic tests were available.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25192939 Image
5) We have shown that mammography screening was inducing a hundred time more radiation-induced cancers in the general population than currently estimated.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31875513
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
6) I think you might be able to publicly show the flaws in Narod’s papers and save many women lives. I have been dismissed from my position at the INSERM for having found the risks of mammography.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Daniel Corcos

Daniel Corcos Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @daniel_corcos

Daniel Corcos Profile picture
Dec 6
10-Year Timeline on Discovering Cancers Caused by Mammograms

🧵
1/
2014
On David Gorski's blog, I learn (belatedly) that mammography screening has not reduced breast cancer mortality. In the comments, I make the hypothesis that this is due to cancers caused by mammography radiation.
2/
2015
Welch and Gorski publish an article in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that mammography screening has not decreased the incidence of metastatic breast cancer. I post a comment on the journal website suggesting this could be due to cancers caused by mammograms.
3/
Read 25 tweets
Daniel Corcos Profile picture
Nov 24
Why Cancers Caused by Mammography Pose a Serious Problem for the U.S. Department of Defense.
🧵
1/
After the atomic bombings in Japan in 1945, the U.S. government presented nuclear weapons as conventional bombs of extraordinary power, dismissing reports of radiation sickness as Japanese propaganda.

2/npr.org/2020/08/19/903…
However, not only was radiation sickness undeniable, but even then, it was foreseeable that radiation exposure could lead to cancers.
3/
Read 22 tweets
Daniel Corcos Profile picture
Jun 14
La fraude du surdiagnostic du cancer du sein.
🧵
Ce fil est le plus complet et le plus didactique que j'ai réalisé sur le sujet.
Sa version anglaise à obtenu plus de 2 millions de vues.

Si vous le trouvez utile, merci de RT. Image
La mise en place du programme de dépistage par mammographie aux États-Unis s’est accompagnée d’une augmentation importante de l’incidence du cancer du sein. Rien d’étonnant à cela puisque le but du dépistage est de découvrir des cancers avec des années d’avance.
Le problème est que cette incidence n’est jamais revenue à son niveau initial, loin de là. Or, c’est ce qui aurait dû se produire s’il s’était agi simplement d’une avance sur le diagnostic. Image
Read 25 tweets
Daniel Corcos Profile picture
Jun 12
The Fraud of Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis
This thread is the most comprehensive and educational I've done on the subject.
If you find it valuable, please RT.

🧵 Image
The implementation of the mammography screening program in the US was accompanied by a significant increase in the incidence of breast cancer. This is not surprising, as the goal of screening is to detect cancers years in advance.
The problem is that this incidence has never returned to its initial level, far from it. However this should have occurred if it were simply a matter of advancing the diagnosis. Image
Read 26 tweets
Daniel Corcos Profile picture
Mar 19
Un fil tout public à partir de cet article :

Il s’agit d’un travail à partir de tous les éléments scientifiques dont on disposait en 2020 sur l’origine du virus du Covid.
1/onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ri…
La conclusion en est que l’origine du virus, à partir des éléments scientifiques acquis en 2020 était plus vraisemblablement la conséquence d’un accident de laboratoire que naturelle.
Or l’article n’a pu être publié qu’en 2024.
2/ Image
Cet article incorpore tous les éléments dont on disposait à l’époque. À l’opposé, un article qui n’était basé sur aucun élément et dont les auteurs pensaient le contraire de ce qu’ils écrivaient, était publié dans le prestigieux Nature Médecine en 2020.
3/nature.com/articles/s4159…
Read 11 tweets
Daniel Corcos Profile picture
Feb 23
People are discovering what I discovered years ago: articles related to Dual-Use Research of Concern need the imprimatur of the US Department of Defense.
That's why there are so many cancers.
🧵
1/
This article
showing that mammograms caused a cancer epidemic in the UK had serial unmotivated refusals before I put it online in bioRxiv.
A few months later, in 2018, I was fired from my permanent tenure at @Inserm (as a civil servant).
2/biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
With @ableyer, we submitted another article to @bmj_latest, with results on the cancer epidemic in the US. There were some criticisms and we were asked to resubmit. We were able to respond to all the criticisms.
However, the corrected paper was rejected by @KamranAbbasi.
3/
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(