Commonly Recommended Treatments for Women's Breast Cancer Are Harmful
Write To Karl Loren About This Page
Source: Original article
This is not a pleasant page to view. But, if you are a woman you realize that breast cancer is the most common form of women's cancer and it is NOT pretty. Nor are the treatments.
Overall the general statistics on the incidence of cancer are going up!
The government has been claiming, for years, that they were winning the war on cancer, that the incidence of cancer was GOING DOWN. They lie to you rather than tell the truth.
America isn't winning the war on cancer after all.
Contrary to optimistic reports from the National Cancer Institute showing the incidence of several devastating cancers has leveled off or even declined in recent years, rates for at least some of those cancers has been rising, according to a new analysis by NCI scientists. (source)
The terrible significance of this is that false claims of success are hiding the truth about recommended treatments.
Various groups, including the Government, are doing many billions of dollars worth of "cancer research" every year. This research results in "new treatments" or comments on existing treatments. As long as the statistics appeared to be getting better? Then, the doctors and general public could believe that the information coming out of the research must be "right" and "good."
If the incidence of cancer is going up, rather than down, then you would have to conclude that the new treatments or comments are being issued from these research groups -- whatever -- they are not helping. It would be foolish to rely, for your personal health and well-being on treatments being recommended by groups whose research is NOT helping reduce cancer. It would be fair to say that recommendations from such groups should be, logically, viewed with great skepticism.
Do
you know what breast radiation looks like?
Have you ever seen it being done?
Would you be willing to have your breast maneuvered around so that the radiation will hit it "just right?"
Does that nurse look compassionate?
Your doctor tells you, or the government health agency tells you --- that radiation for breast cancer is a useful and helpful treatment. You hear from them that the rate of cancer is going down. You can logically conclude that the statistics getting better MUST mean that the new research and new treatments are working. It would be logical and easy for you to accept the recommendation for radiation is sensible.
You, personally, may not get any benefit from a treatment, but you can excuse this, perhaps, because you figure that you are just one of the exceptions to the general rule of things getting better.
Once the statistics
are proven to be false, you must then also conclude
that the research and treatments being announced are
NOT leading to improvement in treatment of cancer.
You might even conclude that, perhaps, the treatments
are leading to a worsening of cancer. This would
be a horrible situation to find yourself in.
Millions of American woman are in that position right now, but most of them don't realize that they are in that position.
They have not heard
the factual report that the statistics have been false.
That news item has been carried by extremely few in the
media. If they haven't heard that, they are not
suspicious of the doctor's recommendation. The
actual source of these false statistics, the National
Cancer Institute, has officially admitted they were
publishing false statistics. Oh! They
describe this situation in such complicated terms that
you wouldn't likely understand the terms. But, on this
web site you can read the actual text published by the
National Cancer Institute, excerpted and reported in
the above quote. The above quote is from the Wall
Street Journal -- they write in rather ordinary
English, not the complex stuff from the National Cancer
Institute.
There are three main types of treatments of woman's breast cancer. Woman's breast cancer is the most common form of cancer for women. The three treatments are surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.
The surgery ranges from a tiny "lumpectomy" where a small piece of tissue is removed, to a radical mastectomy where the entire breast structure is removed -- often even to include parts of the system that goes up into the arm pits -- where the lymph nodes are centered. Biopsies are smaller still -- but deadly.
One form of surgery, or another, has been a very common method of treating breast cancer.
At least the radical
mastectomy is now shown to be a failure. Yet your
doctor will not be telling you this -- but still
recommending full removal of the entire breast
structure.
Here is the story from The Wall Street Journal:
One of the longest-running studies of breast-cancer treatments in the U.S. shows no gain in survival rates for women who underwent radical mastectomies compared with those who received less-extensive surgeries. (source)
If you are a woman whose future is to look like the image, by some male doctor who is very stern -- that you MUST get them cut off? Wouldn't you like to at least read about the fraud, and some alternatives?
The same story applies to radiation, and even the same article in the Wall Street Journal covers that form of treatment:
The study, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, also found that the survival rates of patients who had radiation treatments were about the same as those who didn't. The study measured survival rates 25 years after initial discovery of the breast cancer.
The results provide more grist for proponents of a minimalist approach in treating the disease. "What we're saying is that bigger operations are not going to cure more people," said Bernard Fisher, who headed the study. Dr. Fisher is scientific director of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, a cancer-research center in Pittsburgh that is funded by the National Cancer Institute.
The study, also funded by the National Cancer Institute, is also likely to rekindle controversy over radiation treatment, which has been gaining popularity in recent years. (source)
Other sources have been reporting these same sad statistics:
Radiation has been shown in some studies to prevent breast cancer from returning in the short term, but it may actually increase the risk of dying from other causes. Researchers reviewed 40 studies that followed nearly 20,000 women.
Overall, radiation prevented breast cancer from returning in about two thirds of the women. When the results of all studies were combined, radiation did not improve the death rate from breast cancer during the first 2 years after treatment. After 2 years, women who underwent radiation were about 13% less likely to die from breast cancer each year.
But the benefits of radiation came with a cost, in that the death rate from other causes was actually 21% higher in women who underwent radiation. Researchers speculate that the increase in heart disease may be caused by radiation damage to the heart and arteries.
Researchers state that for women under 50 whose cancer has spread to the lymph nodes, "There's a modest benefit (of radiation)." But for women whose cancer has not spread to the lymph nodes, whose risk of a relapse of breast cancer is low, the benefits of radiation are small, improving survival odds by less than 1%.
For older women whose cancer has spread to the lymph nodes, making a decision about radiation is difficult, since older women already have a greater risk of heart disease, and radiation treatment may increase this risk even more, possibly outweighing any benefits of the treatment. (source)
The third form of
treatment is chemotherapy. Unbelievably that,
too, is condemned as harmful and not to be used:
Adjuvant chemotherapy is toxic and useless and should therefore be forbidden! (Source)
Research reports have been falsified -- leading some number of women to be treated with high doses of chemotherapy that was actually harmful.
The Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) formally retracted a study it had published in 1995, after results of a full audit found unequivocal evidence of scientific misconduct and falsified data. The study, conducted by Werner Bezwoda, M.D., Ph.D. at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa, claimed that women with metastatic breast cancer lived longer after being treated with high-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant, as compared with women who received standard doses of chemotherapy.
These results, now shown to be "fake and completely inadmissible," according to an editorial in the June 1, 2001, issue of JCO, had led to the start of similar clinical trials around the world. (source)
The above, dry account doesn't begin to give the full impact of this fraud. The same story, covered by ABC News put it this way:
April 26 — Fraudulent data have forced the largest U.S. organization of cancer experts to retract a breast cancer study that influenced cancer treatment throughout the world, and led to a stream of other research trying to duplicate or add to the findings. (source)
When it was all over
the many women who had been given these lethal doses of
chemotherapy should have been notified? You would
think? In fact:
The University of Wittswatersrand, where Bezwoda worked during his study, has decided not to contact his patients, many of them black South African women, with the new findings. (source)
There are certainly other "studies" that show better success rates with various types of treatments. And, a medical doctor faced with a woman and breast cancer is legally prohibited from using any therapy other than chemotherapy, surgery or radiation. So, what is he to do?
He slashes, he burns and he poisons, and retires as early as he can from such a profession! He tells you to do self-examination so that you will know "early" and come to him for one of these spurious treatments. But, you know what? Even self-exam has been proven to be worthless, along with mammograms. What should a woman do?
Well, read Karl Loren's page on how to prevent cancer -- here.
There is a safe and helpful alternative, backed with far more science than any of the treatments on this page. Click Here.
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month. You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below. You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered. If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed. There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit. The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription. When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active. No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-1799, the FAX: (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:24 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.