Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘breast cancer’

10641174_735458893175811_7933495607932474591_n

Pumpkin—The New Superfood For Breast Cancer: Pumpkin is a rich source of cucurbitacin E, a unique and powerful anticancer compound which researchers have just discovered is highly toxic to triple negative breast cancer cells in vitro. In fact, cucurbitacin E killed up to 85% of these highly aggressive breast cancer cells by triggering programmed cell death.

This is not actually surprising, as several studies have already shown pumpkin to reduce breast cancer risk in women. And it doesn’t take much. One study out of Japan showed that eating at least three servings of pumpkin per week reduced breast cancer risk by 25% for premenopausal women and 34% for postmenopausal women.

Another study showed that three servings weekly reduced women’s breast cancer risk by 22%–and also reduced lung cancer risk by up to 41%! Cucurbitacin E has shown activity against several other cancers, such as ovarian, skin, prostate, pancreatic and colon. Beyond cucurbitacin, this super-vegetable is a very healthy source of several vitamins, minerals (such as potassium), alpha carotene, beta carotene, lutein and zeaxanthin.

Read Full Post »

Researchers challenge double mastectomy
Survival rates akin to other procedures
September 2, 2014 

By Mackenzie Carpenter / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
More and more women are choosing to aggressively treat a cancer diagnosis in one breast with a double mastectomy, but new research says that won’t make a difference in long-term survival rates.

A large new study by the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Cancer Prevention Institute of California found that the rate of double mastectomies jumped from 2.0 percent in 1998 to 12.3 percent in 2013. But survival rates were similar to those who had the more targeted procedure of breast-conserving surgery — when just the malignant lump is removed, followed by radiation. The findings were published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“When faced with a new breast cancer diagnosis, many patients assume that they will achieve a survival advantage by pursuing the most aggressive surgical strategy,” wrote Lisa Newman, director of the Breast Care Center at the University of Michigan, in an editorial accompanying the JAMA article.

That assumption is misguided, based on results of the study, which analyzed survival for nearly 200,000 patients in the California Cancer Registry from 1998 to 2011. In that group — women with cancer in one breast — 55 percent had just the lump removed followed by radiation treatment, 39 percent had one breast removed and 6 percent had both breasts removed. The 10-year survival rate was 83.2 percent, 81.2 percent, and 79.9 percent, respectively. The difference among the three was not statistically significant.

The analysis doesn’t break down different types of breast cancers, but it is the first to directly compare survival rates following the three most common breast cancer surgeries.

These findings might prompt insurers to think twice about covering double mastectomies after cancer is found in one breast, and it’s important to consider whether such surgery is justified “in an era of escalating medical costs and uncertainty regarding how to contain these costs while continuing to promote a healthy population,” Dr. Newman wrote.

A mastectomy is a major procedure that can require significant recovery time and may entail breast reconstruction, the lead author, Allison Kurian, an assistant professor of medicine and of health research and policy at Stanford, said in a statement. “Whereas a lumpectomy is much less invasive with a shorter recovery period,” she said.

Nonetheless, younger women in particular are opting for a more drastic approach. In 2011 alone, 33 percent of women with cancer in one breast under age 40 opted to remove both breasts, compared to 3.6 percent in 1998. Most of those choosing double mastectomies are white, have private insurance and receive treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center, the researchers found.

Local breast cancer experts weren’t surprised by the findings.

“This confirms what medical professionals have always suspected,” said Kathleen Erb, a breast cancer surgeon at Allegheny General Hospital. “It tells us what we felt was true: There is no survival benefit to removing an unaffected breast, except in special cases.”

Those special cases would include women who test positive for the so-called BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes or other mutations. A genetic predisposition may mean that a double mastectomy can lower risk significantly, even if cancer hasn’t been diagnosed yet, noted Kandace McGuire, a surgeon who is director of the pre-menopausal breast cancer program at Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC.

In May 2013, Hollywood star Angelina Jolie made headlines when she decided to have a preventive double mastectomy after testing positive for the BRCA gene. Other celebrities have had the surgery as well.

”There’s this attitude, ‘I never want this to happen again.’ I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard women say that to me” when requesting a double mastectomy, said Dr. McGuire, even though the likelihood of the initial cancer recurring in either breast is quite small.

”Most women diagnosed with breast cancer live a long, long life, and removing the opposite breast doesn’t improve that already good outcome.”

 

Read Full Post »

Most of the women who undergo routine mammogram screenings for breast cancer will never actually derive any real benefit from the radioactive procedure, while the majority of those who end up testing positive for tumors as a result of mammography will undergo needless treatments for malignancies that never would have led to any health problems.

These are the unsettling findings of a review recently published in the journal The Lancet, which found that for every woman whose life is supposedly saved as a result of early detection, three others undergo invasive surgery, toxic chemotherapy, or immune-destroying radiation treatments for benign tumors that never would have resulted in fatality.

This shocking information represents yet one more nail in the coffin for the barbaric practice of mammography, which is still touted by the mainstream medical system as the premier method by which women have the best chance of not dying from breast cancer. Not only are women not being told about the significant radioactive risks associated with getting mammograms, but they are also not being told that the procedure often detects noncancerous tumors.

According to the review, 1,307 women avoid dying from breast cancer every single year in the U.K. as a result of being screened for breast cancer. But another 3,971 women every year also end up opting for unnecessary, expensive, and highly-toxic treatment procedures for benign tumors as a result of mammography, which causes many of them to suffer irreparable damage to their immune health.

According to a similar study released earlier this year out of Norway, as many as 25 percent of the breast cancers detected by mammography would have never even caused any health problems during the women’s lifetimes. At the same time, mammography also fails to detect as many as 10 percent of harmful breast tumors, indicating that it is a highly unreliable, and very toxic, breast cancer detection method that needs to be effectively phased out of mainstream use.

“Once you’ve decided to undergo mammography screening, you also have to deal with the consequences that you might be over-diagnosed,” says Dr. Metter Kalager, a breast surgeon at Telemark Hospital in Norway about the widespread problem of breast cancer over-diagnosis. “By then, I think, it’s too late. You have to get treated.”

“The truth is that we’ve exaggerated the benefits of screening and we’ve ignored the harms. I think we’re headed to a place where we realize we need to give women a more balanced message: Mammography helps some people but it leads others to be treated unnecessarily.”

Read Full Post »

Mammography is a cruel medical hoax. The primary purpose of mammography is not to “save” women from cancer, but to recruit women into false positives that scare them into expensive, toxic treatments like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

The “dirty little secret” of the cancer industry is that the very same oncologists who scare women into falsely believing they have breast cancer are also the ones pocketing huge profits from selling those women chemotherapy drugs. The conflicts of interest and abandonment of ethics across the cancer industry is breathtaking.

Now, a new scientific study has confirmed exactly what we’ve been warning readers about for years: most women “diagnosed” with breast cancer via mammography never had a cancer problem to begin with!

93% of “early detection” has no benefit to the patient

That’s the conclusion of a groundbreaking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

“We found that the introduction of screening has been associated with about 1.5 million additional women receiving a diagnosis of early stage breast cancer,” writes study co-author Dr. Gilbert Welch.

Now, at first, you might think that’s a good thing. You might think, “Well, early detection saves lives, just like we’ve been told by Komen and the cancer non-profits.”

But you’d be wrong. As Dr. Welch’s team discovered, there was virtually no reduction in late-stage breast cancer from all this “early” diagnosis, meaning that most women who were told they had breast cancer after a mammogram were being lied to.

As he explains:

We found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of overdiagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer — most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation — for a “cancer” that was never going to make them sick. Although it’s impossible to know which women these are, that’s some pretty serious harm.

Yep, it is. In fact, if you do the math and calculate 0.1 million fewer women with advanced-stage cancer out of 1.5 million who were diagnosed, 93% of the “early detection” cancer cases studied were false positives, meaning that they would never have gone on to cause advanced-stage cancer anyway.

Chemo, radiation, cancer surgery largely a hoax

According to these scientists, “Breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years.”

That’s 1.3 million women who were told by their lying oncologists: “If you don’t agree to treatment, you’ll be dead in six months” (or two years, or whatever fraudulent scare schedule they use).

Under the threat of this fear, most women cave in and agree to start “treatment” — often on the very same day they are falsely diagnosed. This so-called “treatment” consists of a highly toxic injection of deadly chemicals that the oncologist makes a small fortune selling to the very same patients he falsely diagnosed. Yep, that’s right: Cancer clinics and oncology treatment centers make huge profits on the chemotherapy drugs they sell to patients — the very same patients they scared into treatment through a false positive mammogram.

Despite the near-total failure of mammography from a scientific point of view, the propaganda push for mammography is downright deafening. As Dr. Welch explains in his New York Times article:

…No other medical test has been as aggressively promoted as mammograms — efforts that have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion (“I can’t be your doctor if you don’t get one”). And proponents have used the most misleading screening statistic there is: survival rates. A recent Komen foundation campaign typifies the approach: In short, tell everyone they have cancer, and survival will [statistically] skyrocket.

Komen for the Cure, of course, has been caught blatantly lying about the supposed “benefits” of mammography. Their statistical deception fools most women, sadly, convincing them to undergo toxic chemotherapy for a “breast cancer” they never really had.

The quackery of modern oncology

Once women begin the chemotherapy for a cancer they don’t even have, they begin to experience what the quack oncologist calls “symptoms of cancer.” Their hair falls out. They lose their appetite. Their muscles atrophy. They become weak, mentally confused and chronically fatigued. The cancer doctor then tells the woman, “You must be strong to pull through this while the medicine is working.”

Pure quackery! You could do much better invoking voodoo or even just wishing to be cured. Because everything about the cancer experience in modern medicine — the diagnosis, the “treatment,” the medical authority — is utterly and maliciously fabricated for the purpose of generating cancer industry profits.

“Better” technology leads to more false positives

There is no more apparent example of modern-day medical quackery than the cancer industry. Armed with ever-more-precise mammography machines, the rate of false positive diagnoses has shot through the roof.

As Dr. Welch writes in the New York Times:

Six years ago, a long-term follow-up of a randomized trial showed that about one-quarter of cancers detected by screening were overdiagnosed. And this study reflected mammograms as used in the 1980s. Newer digital mammograms detect a lot more abnormalities, and the estimates of overdiagnosis have risen commensurately: now somewhere between a third and half of screen-detected cancers.

Got that? Many cancer diagnoses from mammography are utterly false. But they are a great scare tactic for recruiting women into what can only be called a “cult of cancer” in which they are manipulated into poisoning themselves with chemicals. They are later called “cancer survivors” if the poison doesn’t manage to kill them.

These cancer survivors are, of course, victims of a malicious medical cult that I call “the Cult of Komen.” In nearly all cases, it wasn’t the cancer that nearly killed them… it was the treatment!

The cult of Komen

Modern day people sneer and snort at the Jim Jones mass suicide cult of 1978, thinking, “How could those cult members be so stupid to poison themselves to death?”

Look around, folks, because the cancer industry has taken the Jim Jones formula and multiplied it by a factor of a million. The “Cult of Komen” is the modern-day Jim Jones “suicide cult.” It’s a cult where people “believe” in the promise of salvation through chemical indoctrination, but what’s actually delivered to them is rotting death, pain, suffering and humiliation. (Many cancer surgeons operating today literally slice off women’s breasts following a false positive cancer diagnosis, maiming her for life.)

One of the earmarks of this cult is the worship of self-mutilation. It’s not just the women who are manipulated into having their breasts sliced off by surgeons; it’s also the women who are manipulated into being injected with deadly poisons that destroy their kidneys, livers and brains. The No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy, by the way, is cancer.

Like any cult, the cancer industry cult pushes its delusions with emotionally-charged propaganda and powerful symbols (pink ribbons). Millions of women get innocently swept up into the “run for the cure,” apparently clueless to the fact that most of that “cure” money goes to pay for more mammograms that result in more false diagnoses which ensnare yet more women into the same victimization racket.

Thus, the very women who participate in raising money for these pink ribbon cult worship-fests are actually paying for the mammogram machines that will recruit more women into the same cult via a quack diagnosis followed by a “campaign of fear and terror” carried out by oncologists against women. What the cancer industry is doing today is, by any measure, a crime against women. It’s also a form of cultural mutilation of women, much like we’ve seen in Aztec, Mayan and various African cultures throughout history.

Is the Cult of Komen a criminal operation? Almost certainly. Is it scientific? Not a chance. There is nothing “scientific” about the modern-day cancer industry other than the scientific manipulation of women’s fears and emotions. What Komen and the cancer industry lacks in ethics, science or facts, it more than makes up for in tactics of linguistic influence, arm-twisting and flat-out lying to the public about the over-hyped benefits of mammography.

The cancer industry isn’t in the business of curing cancer, after all. But it is in the business of catapulting the propaganda of the delusional cancer cult. As Dr. Welch explains:

Screening proponents have also encouraged the public to believe two things that are patently untrue. First, that every woman who has a cancer diagnosed by mammography has had her life saved (consider those “Mammograms save lives. I’m the proof” T-shirts for breast cancer survivors). The truth is, those survivors are much more likely to have been victims of overdiagnosis.

Thus, all those women marching around with pink T-shirts that say, “Mammograms save lives” are actually declaring themselves to be the unwitting victims of a scientific campaign of targeting women, scaring women into treatment they don’t need, then maiming women with toxic chemicals or surgeons’ knives.

If those pink T-shirts actually told the truth, they should say, “I survived the cancer industry.”

The big question in all this, of course, is: For how long will western civilization continue to live under the spell of the Cult of Komen? How many million women have yet to be sacrificed to the false quackery of mammography and the scam of modern oncology?

And more importantly, why do families allows their own mothers, daughters, aunts and grandmothers to be poisoned and maimed right in front of their own eyes, while they all sit back and submit to the false authority of profit-seeking doctors who practice nothing more than pure quackery?

Modern oncology represents the Dark Ages of western medicine

There will come a day, I have repeatedly predicted, when the modern practice of chemotherapy will be relegated to the history books of bad medicine, alongside sniffing mercury vapors and surgically removing body organs to treat mental disorders.

Until that day comes, countless numbers of innocent women will be tricked into being mutilated, chemically poisoned, and blasted with ionizing radiation by cruel doctors who frankly don’t care one bit how many women they maim or murder as long as they get reimbursed by Medicare for the procedures.

That’s the truth about the cancer industry you won’t hear from Komen (nor from any of its pink ribbon cult followers).

The conclusion from the study authors

Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038099_mammograms_false_positives_overdiagnosis.html#ixzz2ENYwOdmf

Read Full Post »

Is your hospital giving you a discount for your next mammogram? Or is your doctor recommending that you do one soon, as a preventive measure?

If yes, I suggest you read THIS first.

Read Full Post »

Computer-aided detection (CAD) technology, which analyzes mammography images and marks suspicious areas for radiologists to review, has been widely hyped and pushed on women as a way to insure invasive breast cancer is spotted on mammograms. And it has grown into a huge industry, adding millions of dollars to the cost of healthcare.

The problem is, CAD simply doesn’t work — at all. That’s right. Despite the fact CAD is now applied to the large majority of screening mammograms in the U.S. with annual direct Medicare costs exceeding $30 million (according to a 2010 study in theJournal of the American College of Radiology), new research by University of California at Davis (UC Davis) scientists shows the expensive technology is ineffective in finding breast tumors.

But it does something extremely well. It causes enormous stress by greatly increasing a woman’s risk of being called back for more costly testing following a CAD analyzed mammogram.

The new research, just published in theJournal of the National Cancer Institute, used data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to analyze 1.6 million mammograms. Entitled “Effectiveness of Computer-Aided Detection in Community Mammography Practice,” the study specifically looked at screening mammograms performed on more than 680,000 women at 9 0mammography facilities in seven U.S. states, between the years of 1998 and 2006.

The results are being hailed as the most definitive findings to date on whether the super popular mammography tool is effective in locating cancer in the breast. The findings? CAD is a waste of time and money.

The false-positive rate increased from 8.1 percent before CAD to 8.6 percent after CAD was installed at the medical centers in the study. What’s more, the detection rate of breast cancer and the stage and size of breast cancer tumors were similar regardless of whether or not CAD was used.

“In real-world practice, CAD increases the chances of being unnecessarily called back for further testing because of false-positive results without clear benefits to women,”Joshua Fenton, assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Family and Community Medicine, said in a statement to the media. “Breast cancers were detected at a similar stage and size regardless of whether or not radiologists used CAD.”

This isn’t the first time the CAD technology has been questioned by researchers. The current study follows a previous study of the computer aided mammography tool that was published by Dr. Fenton in theNew England Journal of Medicinein 2007.

That examination of mammography screening results in 43 facilities, including seven that used CAD, found that CAD was actually linked toreduced accuracyof mammogram screenings and produced no difference in the detection rate of invasive breast cancer.

“In the current study, we evaluated newer technology in a larger sample and
over a longer time period,” Fenton noted in a statement to the press. “We also looked for the first time at cancer stage and cancer size, which are critical for understanding how CAD may affect long-term breast cancer outcomes, such as mortality.”

CAD software was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration back in 1998, but its use only skyrocketed after Medicare began covering it in 2001. According to 2009 Medicare data, using CAD adds another $12 to the costs of having a mammogram (about $81 for film mammography and $130 for digital mammography), representing a 9 percent to 15 percent additional cost for CAD use.

For more information:

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom

Read Full Post »

A good woman who had to endure two tragedies, the death of her teenage son and her politician husband’s infidelity (and this during the time when her cancer had returned). Many describe her as a very classy lady with tremendous resilience. Sadly, she believed too much in Western cancer treatments, including the ‘benefit’ of mammograms. After many rounds of chemo, the cancer not only returned, but had spread to her bones. And what did her doctors recommend? More chemo.

An interesting read HERE.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »