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
Sep 24, 2020 • 9 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X
October test (thread) @VPrasadMDMPH @adamcifu @EricTopol @HealthWatchUK
1) Let’s suppose that you screen for cancer people aged 50 to 75 years every 2 years and remove all the cancers you detect for 25 years.
After 25 years of this, in people over 75 years, will you find:
2) Answer: fewer prostate cancers; but more breast cancers.
In 75+ year olds: Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020
3) Why are there more cancers in old women after mammography screening?
4)
3a. Radiation causes cancer.
You are right. The phenomenon is seen in registries from every country where it is studied:
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
researchgate.net/project/A-mamm…
5)
 3b. Can’t be X-rays because the dose of radiation for a mammo is the same amount a woman would get from her natural surroundings over 7 weeks, right?
- Sure. Swallowing all your pills at once is the same as taking them in 7 weeks.
6)
 3c. Don’t know but in case of doubt, I prefer to take the risk of causing cancers (precaution principle). Correlation is not causation. Could be that X-rays are caused by cancer.
7) Who is to blame for mammography-induced cancers?
a) The screening program organizers
b) The scientist who discovered mammography causes cancer
8) Who has been punished for it?
a) The screening program organizers
b) The scientist who discovered mammography causes cancer
9)
 a) The organizers: wrong answer.
b) The scientist : right. I have been fired from the INSERM.

• • •

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 8
L’article d’EPI-PHARE sur le vaccin anti-Covid qui protège de toutes les maladies et fait revenir l’être aimé nous a valu une bonne tranche de rigolade, mais je voudrais revenir sur un aspect plus sérieux de cette affaire.
1/
Cet article est un bon témoin du niveau de nullité et de corruption systémique de l’épidémiologie française, ce milieu qui a été complice de mon renvoi de l’@Inserm par Yves Lévy (le mari de Buzyn) en 2018, pour la découverte des cancers causés par les mammographies.
2/
Nullité d’abord. Pour la petite histoire on a pu voir Catherine Hill, la papesse de l’épidémiologie française, justifier la fraude Surgisphère (qui venait de créer un scandale sans précédent en inventant ses données) par le fait que les résultats étaient valables malgré tout.
3/
Read 11 tweets
Daniel Corcos Profile picture
Aug 28
Those who blame @NIHDirector_Jay should understand that our common adversaries are in the Pentagon. Their budget is larger than that of the NIH. They will always invoke national security.
But they have an Achilles heel.
Please RT
1/
1) There is no justification for concealing the risk of X-rays other than to protect themselves.
2) Anyone can verify that mammography screening has been followed by a wave of cancers in older women that cancels out the benefits of screening (Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020).
2/
If everyone who sees this information spreads it, the US military's responsibility will eventually become known.

3/
Read 5 tweets
Daniel Corcos Profile picture
Aug 22
Dear Peter, as you rightly noted: "Many cancer screening trials randomise participants between invitation/no invitation to screening. The effect of lack of compliance with the allocated intervention is often catastrophic."
1/
Despite these limitations, most mammography screening trials indicate a benefit on breast cancer mortality.
It would be preferable to evaluate mammography screening based on the long-term effect of implementing screening programs on breast cancer mortality.
2/
However, all studies are consistent: there is no long-term reduction in breast cancer mortality following screening.

3/
Read 6 tweets
Daniel Corcos Profile picture
Feb 12
Fil sur mon renvoi de l’@Inserm pour la découverte des cancers causés par les mammographies par Yves Lévy, l’ami de Fauci.
Ce dernier était à la tête de la biodéfense américaine et c'est à lui nous devons la pandémie de Covid qui a fait des millions de morts.
🧵
1/
Tout ce que j’y affirme est vérifiable. Les informations sont soit dans le fil, soit disponibles sur demande.
2/
J’ai travaillé dans l’équipe d’Yves Lévy de 2009 à 2012, date à laquelle il m’a renvoyé de son équipe. Mon projet concernait des lymphocytes dont j’essayais de montrer qu’ils étaient à l’origine d’une forme de leucémie.
3/
Read 32 tweets
Daniel Corcos Profile picture
Dec 6, 2024
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, 2024
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

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!

:(