Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the age of 40-55, and the high prevalence has spawned a very lucrative industry; from mammography and other dangerous or invasive testing methods, to “preventive” double mastectomies and cancer drugs.
Much effort is placed on trying to detect cancer at an earlier stage. Unfortunately, the conventional recommendation to get regular mammograms has shown to be more harmful than helpful, as research shows 10 times as many women are harmed in some way compared to those whose lives are spared by annual mammograms.
Is there a better way to prevent becoming a statistic?
According to the National Breast Cancer Foundation, 200,000 new cases will be diagnosed each year in the U.S. making it three times more common than gynecological cancers.
Breast cancer will claim the lives of 40,000 new people each year.
Family practitioners, obstetrician-gynecologists, and internists are gatekeeper physicians with the first professional opportunity to detect breast cancer. When they fail, the results can be fatal.
The women most affected by delay in diagnosis tend to be young (under 40). They typically have relatively high socioeconomic status and are covered by private health insurance.
The typical scenario is as follows. The woman presents with a self-discovered mass that is painless. The doctor performs a physical exam and feels a mass but believes it to be benign because of the patient’s age. The doctor orders a mammogram, and the results are negative for abnormalities or malignancy, despite the palpable mass. The patient is diagnosed with fibrocystic disease, which is hormonally induced, and told she does not have cancer. Of course, she is tremendously relieved. The doctor does not recommend a biopsy or refer the patient for further consultation.
A delay of an average of 13 to 15 months precedes the ultimate diagnosis of breast cancer. When the diagnosis is eventually made, the cancer will be at a more advanced stage.1
In three studies of women with breast cancer diagnostic errors, over 80 percent of the women discovered their breast mass and then went to see a doctor.2
The failure of the physician to be concerned about the mass accounts for most of these errors. Many errors are attributed to the physician’s disbelief that cancer occurs in young women.3
Many women are well educated about this horrible disease. They are aware of breast self-examination and diagnostic tools like mammograms. They recognize that early diagnosis and treatment mean a greater likelihood of survival. Yet, when they discover their own breast mass, and their physician tells them not to worry because it is fibrocystic disease, which later turns out to be cancer, they become justifiably angry.
In the US, women are still urged to get an annual mammogram starting at the age of 40, despite the fact that updated guidelines set forth by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2009 urge women to wait until the age of 50, and to only get bi-annual screening thereafter.
Unfortunately, many women are completely unaware that the science simply does not back up the use of routine mammograms as a means to prevent breast cancer death.
What’s worse, the “new and improved” tomosynthesis mammogram, which provides a three-dimensional (3D) image of the breast,1 is now being hoisted on women across the US as “the answer” to mammography’s failing efficacy rates and pattern of harmful misdiagnosis…
Please, don’t get suckered into further doubling your risk for radiation-induced breast cancer by signing up for annual 3D tomosynthesis.
A new study just published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry appears to be the first to provide what the researchers call “unequivocal evidence that omega-3s reduce cancer risk.”
So, how much of a risk are they talking about? A huge one.
Mammography and clinical breast examination are the two principal means of screening for breast cancer.1 The effectiveness of breast-cancer screening has been well documented in eight randomized, controlled trials,2 but there has been less attention to its accuracy in community settings and to the consequences of a false positive result. A national review of community mammography facilities in the United States found that 1 of every 10 screening mammograms gave a false positive result.3 Equivalent information for clinical breast examination is not available.
If a woman undergoes annual screening beginning at the age of 40, she will have had 60 opportunities for a false positive result by the age of 70, with 30 mammograms and 30 clinical breast examinations. The cumulative lifetime risk of her having a result from a screening test that requires further workup, even though no breast cancer is present, is not known. An estimate of 25 percent has been given for the cumulative risk of a false positive result after 10 mammograms and 10 clinical breast examinations.4 It is important to determine the cumulative risk of false positive tests, because women are advised to have breast-cancer screening every one to two years over several decades of their lifetimes, and false positive results can provoke anxiety, increase costs, and cause morbidity.5-13
Using the computerized clinical records of a health maintenance organization (HMO) for a group of women over a 10-year period, we determined the cumulative risk of a false positive result of breast-cancer screening, the number and type of subsequent diagnostic workups resulting from the false positive results, and the costs of the false positive results. The HMO we studied has long encouraged women who are 40 or older to undergo routine breast-cancer screening. By studying themedical records, we ascertained the 10-year cumulative rates of false positive results for both mammography and clinical breast examination. We then determined the number of diagnostic examinations generated by the false positive results and estimated their costs.
READ MORE CLICK BELOW
Removing a cancer surgically has been shown to give the best chance of survival. Unfortunately, anything that disrupts cancer like surgery (and possibly a biopsy) can spread cancer cells to distant organs (metastasis). It does this by increasing inflammation, reducing immune function, promoting angiogenesis, and increasing cancer cell adhesion.
Fortunately, science has found a way to dramatically reduce the risk of metastasis! A study was published in The British Medical Journal in 2002 that demonstrated an over the counter drug, Cimetidine, used for heart burn turns out to have potent anti-cancer and anti-metastatic properties. You know the drug as Tagamet. Another study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute documented the power of modified citrus pectin to inhibit the spread of cancer. The recommended protocol for cancer surgery is a minimum of 5 days before surgery take 14 grams of MCP (a type of dietary fiber that has been modified to make it absorbable into the blood stream) and 800 mg a day of Cimetidine and continue for a month or more to reduce metastatic risk. I would do the same if having a biopsy.
You need to know the role of your immune system in fighting cancer and preventing metastasis. Although there are many immune cells one stands out above all the rest when it comes to cancer. The immune cell NK (Natural Killer Cells) specifically seeks out and kills a variety of cancer cells. Surgery inhibits the immune system including NK cells but there are a number of ways to increase NK activity. The nutritional supplements: glutamine, garlic, inositol hexaphosphate (IP6), lactoferin, and active hexose correlated compound (AHCC) have all been demonstrated to increase NK activity.
After surgery there is a significant increase in factors that promote angiogenesis, the process of building new blood vessels. It’s been well documented that cancer can’t grow beyond the size of a pinhead without the addition of new blood vessels. The neutraceuticals EGCG from green tea, cur cumin, chrysin, soy isoflavones (genistein), and silibinin from milk thistle have been shown to inhibit angiogenesis.
The kind of surgery as well as the type of anesthesia has an impact on metastasis as well. The less invasive the surgery the better. The common use of morphine after surgery promoted metastasis in a breast cancer study. It’s now recommended to use the drug Tramadol for pain relief as it actually stimulates the immune system and NK activity in particular. Adding a regional anesthesia, a spinal block, along with conventional anesthesia has been shown to markedly reduce the threat of recurrence and metastasis during the years following surgery.
Again, inflammation promotes cancer growth and metastasis. NSAIDS, over the counter anti-inflammatories including aspirin have been shown to decrease inflammation by reducing a potent inflammatory enzyme, COX-2. In 2008 a study showed an 80% reduction in bone metastasis in breast cancer cases for those taking a COX-2 inhibiting drug.
Supplements including cur cumin, resveratrol, vitamin E, soy isoflavones, EGCC, quercetin, fish oil, garlic, feverfew and milk thistle are natural products that inhibit inflammation. Some of these also thin the blood and should not be used prior to surgery. For specific protocols and caveats for all the neutraceuticals mentioned here are to be found at www.LEF.org. Note: these products are to be used for cancer recovery and preparation and not to prevent, cure or treat cancer.
If you are reading this article it’s likely you are facing a potentially serious situation. Take action, educate yourself and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Be sure and read my strategies for preventing cancer.
Yours in good health,
Dr. Hough OC Breast Wellness
11770 Warner Ave #111, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 363-5595
Cancer can not survive in an oxygen-rich, alkaline environment.
(NaturalNews) About one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetime. For men, it’s about one in a thousand. Death rates have been going down since 1990 by about 2% each year; a woman’s chance of dying is only about one in thirty-five. While the statistics are encouraging, it is still a life-changing illness, leaving us physically ill and emotionally vulnerable.
Click Here to learn more.
As if the collapse of the world financial system isn’t enough to set one’s nerves on edge, a study just published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology reveals yet another alarming trend: during the past several years the percentage of women with non-invasive breast cancer (DCIS) who have their breasts removed entirely (mastectomy) has increased 188%! Since mastectomy is not at all required to treat the vast majority of patients with DCIS, the looming question then becomes “Why are all of these women having their breasts removed?”
Recently, the Harvard School of Public Health shook the cancer industry when it published research showing that mammograms may not only be inappropriate forbreast cancer screening, but may actually contribute to significant overdiagnosis of cancer that otherwise would have remained harmlessi.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) secretly monitored the personal e-mail of nine whistleblowers—its own scientists and doctors—over the course of two years.
The monitored employees had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.
Six of the monitored scientists and doctors recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA, charging that the agency violated their constitutional rights to privacy by monitoring lawful activity in personal email accounts, and using that information to harass and ultimately relieve some of them of their positions.
Radiologists often rely on specialized “CAD” computer software to find suspicious areas in mammograms.
But a large new study showed that the technology has failed to improve breast cancer detection. In fact, it increases a woman’s risk of getting a “false positive” result and being told she had an abnormal mammogram when she’s actually cancer-free.
The study analyzed 1.6 million mammograms taken between 1998 and 2006. Some experts say that in light of the new evidence, radiologists should use more discretion in interpreting CAD results.