Thursday, June 06, 2013

Misinformed About Cancer? You Are Not Alone!

Prostate cancer treatment a bogus industry that harms more men than it helps
by: J. D. Heyes
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
(NaturalNews) New science continues to emerge showing "traditional" medical treatments, especially those for cancer, in particular, can actually do more harm than good.
The latest evidence comes in the form of a recent research study said to challenge how one of the most common forms of cancer - prostate - is treated. According to details of the study reported by Britain's Independent newspaper, "the world's biggest randomized trial of prostate cancer has found that the standard surgical treatment for the disease is ineffective."
Scientists conducting the study compared radical prostatectomy - or surgical removal of the prostate - with "watchful waiting," which is akin to doing nothing at all. The study found that surgery did not extend life.
"The only rational response to these results is," a leading British specialist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the paper, "when presented with a patient with prostate cancer, to do nothing."
Some still oppose a rational 'wait and see' approach
Prostate cancer is the most common in men, regardless of ethnicity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Cancer Society says 238,590 men will develop prostate cancer this year; of those, nearly 30,000 will die from the disease.
But the new study says in up to half of these cases, prostate cancer is slow-growing; even when left untreated, men can live for many more years and eventually die from something else. In fact, so slow is the growth that some specialists are beginning to question whether such cases should even be labeled "cancer."
These are some of the results of the Prostate Intervention Versus Observation Trial, or PIVOT. Led by Timothy Wilt, the study began in 1994 with 731 men. It showed that patients who underwent surgery had less than a three percent survival benefit when compared with those who had no treatment whatsoever, after being followed up for a dozen years. In fact, the difference was so slight as to be insignificant and could even have risen by chance.
Per the Independent:
When the findings were presented at a meeting of the European Association of Urology in Paris in February, attended by 11,000 specialists from around the world, they were greeted with a stunned silence.
One expert who attended the meeting said that while most research results are immediately transmitted by specialists in the audience using social media, "I did not see any urologists enthusiastically tweeting about [this one]."

Despite the results of this new comprehensive study, there are urologists who remain wedded to the failed techniques of the past. These doctors find the idea of doing nothing - just watching and waiting - unacceptable, the paper reported.
But surgery carries side effects and risks, too. In fact, surgery can have a serious quality of life impact, with half of men who have surgery suffering impotence and 10 percent suffering incontinence.
Options for treatment shrinking
One of those who disagreed with watching and waiting was Dr. Ben Challacombe, a consultant urologist at Guys and St. Thomas NHS (National Health System) Trust in Britain. He notes that many of the men in the trial were older - an average of 67 years old - were of low risk and would not have been offered surgery in the United Kingdom anyway.
"We would offer milder treatment such as radiotherapy or watchful waiting. We are better than the U.S. in putting men on surveillance," he said.
Needless to say, many urologists are content to continue current treatments - burning, cutting, and poisoning - men with
prostate cancer. Many even say prostate treatment now is where breast cancer treatment was a generation ago, when the only treatment then was surgical mastectomy, or removal of the breast.
Removing only a portion of the prostate - as in "lumpectomies" with breast cancer
- isn't a real option either, says Dr. Joel Nelson, of the Department of Urology at the University of Pittsburgh. He says prostate cancer can trigger molecular changes in the entire gland, which can then lead to "malignant transformation."
But the overarching point is this: More and more, science is uncovering the fact that current traditional treatment of cancer is becoming obsolete and ineffective. And we will cover every study detailing those chances in the months and years ahead.
Lies of breast cancer industry unravel as screening review shows startling over-diagnosis and lack of truthful information
by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Thursday, June 06, 2013
(NaturalNews) 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."
Sources for this article include:
Michael Douglas may be a cunning linguist, but his cancer explanations still make no sense
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) With his recent declaration that he "got cancer" by performing oral sex on too many
Michael Douglas joins the long list of Hollywood celebrities who embarrass themselves by repeating absurd lies told to them by cancer doctors. According to Douglas, it was not his smoking, drinking, stressful lifestyle and substance abuse that caused his cancer... no, it was all those "deadly vaginas" says hilarious radio guest Liam Scheff on the Robert Scott Bell Show. Download the June 4, 2013 archives to listen:
If having oral sex with women gives you cancer, then Charlie Sheen should be the world's most monstrous walking tumor. But he isn't. That's because oral sex doesn't cause cancer. It's a delusional medical myth dreamed up by the vaccine industry to sell HPV vaccines to the masses by linking them to common sex acts.
No wonder
the American Cancer Society just gave Michael Douglas an award. It's the "Cunning Linguist" award! Because he's so good with words, you see. Especially when teaching people about why they should all run out and get shot up with HPV vaccines.
Why I cringe every time a Hollywood celebrity declares something about cancer
By the way, I don't enjoy covering movie stars and their cancer adventures. It pains me to even cover Michael Douglas, as I always feel some level of compassion for all these celebrities (including Angelina Jolie) who are duped by the cancer industry. At one level, they are only doing the best they can given the very limited, distorted information they've told by conventional cancer doctors.
On the other hand, it has to be stated that if you want a poster boy for why NOT to listen to the cancer industry, just look at Michael Douglas. This is a man who went from being vibrant, glowing and full of life to looking exhausted and hollow following chemotherapy treatments. That's what chemotherapy does to you, of course: it gives you cancer while destroying your body.
Sadly, nobody ever explained to Michael Douglas that the No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy is, scientifically speaking, more cancer. They probably also never told him that other side effects of chemo include permanent brain damage, liver damage and kidney damage. This organ damage then impairs the body's ability to detoxify itself from dietary and environmental poisons, further accelerating the person's aging.
Too many celebrities are killed by the cancer industry

Sadly, Michael Douglas may soon join a long list of celebrities who died not from cancer, but from
cancer treatments. Those who made similar mistakes include Patrick Swayze, Farrah Fawcett, Peter Jennings and Tony Snow. There are many more, but you get the point.
It saddens me to see people of such fame and fortune allowing themselves to be sacrificed by the cancer industry. If they had only been able to see documentaries like Cut, Poison, Burn, then they would have at least been able to make more informed decisions about their cancer treatment options.
The conventional cancer industry is so delusional that it pretends nothing exists outside its monopoly-protected chemo, radiation and surgery. Yet the world is full of cancer treatments and cures that are successfully used every day by people all over the world.
Don't expect to hear about them from many celebrities, however. Although some are well-informed about natural medicine and holistic therapies, very few speak out.
Suzanne Somers shines with the voice of truth and courage

Suzanne Somers is probably the most courageous in raising her voice about natural cancer treatment options. Her book "Knockout" is a must-read for anyone wanting to survey what's available in the world of holistic, non-toxic cancer treatments.
But instead of being praised as a courageous, informed woman seeking answers to empower other women, Suzanne is of course viciously attacked by the cancer industry and the mainstream media over her book. That's to be expected, though: anyone who steps on the toes of the highly profitable cancer industry must expect to be targeted with unfair, slanderous and utterly fabricated accusations by the popular press.
Because if there's one thing the media doesn't want people to know about cancer, it's the truth -- that you can halt cancer, prevent cancer and even reverse cancer. Cancer vaccines are a medical hoax. Conventional cancer treatments cause cancer and turn cancer patients into repeat customers for the sick-care medical system.
You'll never hear the cancer industry empowering people with information about vitamin D for prevention, or how to select anti-cancer foods at the grocery store, or how to avoid cancer-causing chemicals in personal care products, cosmetics, hair dyes and laundry detergents. Nope, that information isn't offered to you. Instead, you get treated to absolutely laughable nonsense like Michael Douglas saying his cancer was caused by some other woman's crotch but not his smoking habit.
The TSA is checking us all for crotch cancer
If crotches are so deadly, then now I suddenly understand why the TSA needs to reach down all our pants: They're looking for deadly HPV strains in order to protect air passengers from dying of cancer. Or maybe the TSA is actually looking to spread HPV from one traveler to another, which is why they never change their blue latex examination gloves between crotch examinations. (Seriously, have you ever watched them closely? There's a good reason why I don't fly anymore...)
Now it all makes sense. Oh, and by the way. Now Michael Douglas claims he never said what he said about oral sex and his cancer. You just heard him wrong when he said, precisely, "without getting too specific, this particular cancer is caused by something called HPV, which actually comes about from cunnilingus." Click here to hear the actual recording.
Oh snap! All this time I thought he was talking about being a cunning linguist! It's all my fault, of course. His publicist is probably correct when he recently called me a master debater.

Angelina Jolie undergoes double mastectomy
By Ed Payne, CNN
Thu May 16, 2013
(CNN) Actress Angelina Jolie announced in a New York Times op-ed article on Tuesday that she underwent a preventive double mastectomy after learning that she carries a mutation of the BRCA1 gene, which sharply increases her risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.
"My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman," Jolie wrote. "Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy."
Five reasons we love Angelina Jolie
Jolie's mother, actress and producer Marcheline Bertrand, died of ovarian cancer in 2007 at the age of 56. Jolie is 37 years old.
In the Times op-ed, titled "My Medical Choice," Jolie said she finished three months of medical procedures at the Pink Lotus Breast Center in California on April 27 that included the mastectomies and reconstruction.
Opinion: Jolie's choice carries risks with benefits
A mastectomy is an operation that removes all or part of the breast.
She wrote that her experience involved a three-step process. On February 2, the actress had a procedure that increases the chance that the nipple can be saved. Two weeks later, she had major surgery where the breast tissue was removed and temporary fillers were put in place. Nine weeks later, she described undergoing "reconstruction of the breasts with an implant."
"There have been many advances in this procedure in the last few years," she said, "and the results can be beautiful."
Why double mastectomies are up
"I wanted to write this to tell other women that the decision to have a mastectomy was not easy. But it is one I am very happy that I made," Jolie wrote. "My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87 percent to under 5 percent."
BRCA stands for breast cancer susceptibility genes, a class of genes known as tumor suppressors, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Hollywood applauds Jolie for going public with surgery
Mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have been linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. A blood test can determine if a woman is "highly susceptible" to the cancers.
Fellow actress Christina Applegate had a similar procedure in 2008. She also had a mutation of the BRCA1 gene.
My preventive mastectomy: Staying alive for my kids
Jolie may be best known for title role in the "Lara Croft" series of films, but she also won an Academy Award for best supporting actress in "Girl, Interrupted." She also received a Golden Globe Award and SAG Award for the same role.
Opinion: Jolie's brave message
Jolie serves as a special envoy for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and has
visited refugee camps around the world.
The actress has been in a relationship with actor Brad Pitt since the mid-2000s, and they are engaged. The couple has three biological and three adopted children.
In telling her story, Jolie acknowledged that surgery might not be the right choice for every woman.Tough choices in cancer gene fight
"For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options," Jolie wrote. "I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices."
But for Jolie, the decision ultimately came down to her kids.
"I can tell my children that they don't need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer," she said.iReporters: BRCA gene not a death sentence
Also See:
Avoid Chemotherapy and Radiation!
(Part 1)
19 November 2011
(Part 2)
02 August 2012
Cancer and Exercise!
04 September 2011
A World Without Cancer!
(Part 1)
08 March 2011
(Part 2)
31 January 2012
Research: Meat and Dairy Cause Cancer!
23 December 2012