Tweet

Daniel Corcos

21 Nov, 15 tweets, 4 min read

@Lanceursalertes

La radiologie est-elle la principale cause de cancer dans les pays développés ?
THREAD #ALERTE
@Lanceursalertes @mlalerte
1/

Nous avons montré que le dépistage par mammographie a été suivi d'une forte augmentation de l'incidence du cancer du sein. (Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020).
2/

De cela, on peut conclure que la mammographie provoque le cancer. La réaction primaire selon laquelle «corrélation n'est pas causalité» peut être facilement réfutée :
3/

I. La corrélation entre l'incidence du cancer et le dépistage par mammographie est parfaite, se produit à chaque fois et partout.
Voir par exemple ici : jamanetwork.com/journals/jamai…
4/

II. Après l'augmentation transitoire liée à l'avance diagnostique, une augmentation persistante de l'incidence du cancer est observée, survenant après 6 ans.
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

5/

Les cancers du sein surviennent après les mammographies (Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020).
6/

III. Une très forte augmentation peut survenir dans les 10 ans (pas de rôle des facteurs de confusion).
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

7/

IV. Les rayons X provoquent des cassures de l'ADN et les mutations provoquent des cancers (tous les manuels de biologie du cancer).
8/

V. Les affirmations selon lesquelles les radiographies sont sûres sont des mensonges basés sur aucune donnée.

9/

Y a-t-il quelque chose de spécifique concernant les mammographies qui explique le nombre de cancers causés ?
10/

Non. 75 % des cancers du sein peuvent être causés par des radiations provenant de diverses procédures médicales (John Gofman).
ratical.org/radiation/CNR/…

11/

Est-ce spécifique au cancer du sein ? Apparemment non.
ratical.org/radiation/CNR/…
Et l'incidence de cancers ajustée à l'âge est corrélée à l'indice de développement humain, lui-même corrélé à la disponibilité des soins de santé.
12/

Il y a de bonnes raisons de vérifier les affirmations de Gofman.
Les raisons de ne pas le faire sont nombreuses : argent, pouvoir, responsabilité. Les forces auxquelles il faut faire face sont gigantesques
13/

On ne peut pas en rester là.
14/14

@threadreaderapp

@threadreaderapp please unroll.

• • •

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

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

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

More from @daniel_corcos

Daniel Corcos

@daniel_corcos

20 Nov

@BricePerrier

La radiologie est-elle la principale cause de cancer dans les pays développés ?
@BricePerrier @sfoucart

THREAD

1/

Nous avons montré que le dépistage par mammographie a été suivi d'une forte augmentation de l'incidence du cancer du sein. (Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020).
2/

De cela, on peut conclure que la mammographie provoque le cancer. La réaction primaire selon laquelle «corrélation n'est pas causalité» peut être facilement réfutée :
3/

Read 15 tweets

Daniel Corcos

@daniel_corcos

18 Nov

Is radiology the main cause of cancer?
(THREAD)
1/

We have shown that mammography screening has been followed by a large increase in breast cancer incidence. (Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020).
2/

From this, I conclude that mammography causes cancer. The knee-jerk reaction that « correlation is not causation » can be easily disproved:
3/

Read 13 tweets

Daniel Corcos

@daniel_corcos

27 Oct

@HealthWatchUK

The role of mammography in causing cancer is not a scientific issue: it is a major issue on the functioning of scientific institutions.
@HealthWatchUK @ICIJorg @thackerpd @TranspariMED @mattwridley @ASTRO_org @ianbirrell @NaomiOreskes @deb_cohen @fastlerner @KatherineEban
1/n

There is large evidence showing that ionizing radiation creates DNA damage, the main mechanism of cancer. X-rays used in radiology are ionizing radiation.
2/n

Last year, Archie Bleyer and I published in the New England Journal of Medicine epidemiological evidence showing that a large increase in breast cancer incidence occurred following mammography screening (Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020).
3/n

Read 15 tweets

Daniel Corcos

@daniel_corcos

22 Oct

#Fauci
Remember the HIV vaccine?
reuters.com/article/uk-aid…
The trial was criticised five years ago by 22 prominent U.S. scientists who doubted it would have any effect. Washington was accused of wasting more than a $100 million (63 million pounds) by funding it.
1/

“It was a tough decision. I am glad we made it,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who defied the criticism and continued the trial.
2/

Anthony Fauci, also a backer of the test, said of the results: "I don't want to use a word like 'breakthrough,' but I don't think there's any doubt that this is a very important result,"
npr.org/sections/healt…
3/

Read 6 tweets

Daniel Corcos

@daniel_corcos

21 Oct

@NaomiOreskes

The origin of Covid-19 is no longer a scientific issue: it is a major issue on the functioning of scientific institutions.
(corrected version)
@NaomiOreskes @thackerpd @mattwridley
#COVID19 #lableak
1/n

The Covid-19 epidemic that has claimed millions of lives began in the city of Wuhan, a modern city in China with an institute (the WIV) where bat coronaviruses were studied and housed.
2/n

The most basic way to determine if the SARS-CoV-2 that claimed so many victims came from the WIV would have been to find out what work was being done there by obtaining funding requests and lab notebooks.`
3/n

Read 22 tweets

Daniel Corcos

@daniel_corcos

20 Oct

@TranspariMED

#BlackLivesMatter
@TranspariMED
THREAD
Starting biennial screening mammography at age 40 could cut cancer deaths in Black women by 57%, according to a model study of 100 million women published October 18 in the @AnnalsofIM
auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec…
See the problems?
1/n

1. This is a model without any observational data.
2. This is ridiculous: there is less than 20 million black women in the USA.
3. According to all long term observational studies, we hardly see any benefit of mammography screening on cancer deaths in women over 50 ...
2/n

, for whom screening should be more effective.
4. Most countries do not recommend screening before 50.
5. The authors do not take into account the fact that mammography screening has actually caused a breast cancer epidemic (Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM)

3/n

Read 5 tweets

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

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

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!