The fact is clear that in primitive societies, people don’t die of cancer. This is supposed to be because they are healthier and eat properly. But who dares think the unthinkable: that the cause of the problem is doctors and when you don’t have them, cancer is insignificant?
It’s only when doctors using Western methods get involved that cancer actually becomes a problem at all. Then it’s suddenly a serious and probably fatal condition.
But it may be time for a re-think. On Dec 16th 2008 a major study was published in The Archives of Internal Medicine which should change EVERYTHING doctors know and think about cancer.
Cancers heal themselves! The breakthrough study, from Norway, suggests that even invasive breast cancers may sometimes go away without treatment and in larger numbers than anyone ever believed.
If the spontaneous remission hypothesis is credible, it should cause a major re-evaluation in the approach to breast cancer research and treatment; in fact all cancers.
This was no lightweight study. Two large groups of women were studied. One group of 109,784 women was followed from 1992 to 1997. Mammography screening in Norway was initiated in 1996. In 1996 and 1997, all were offered mammograms, and nearly every woman accepted.
The second group of 119,472 women was followed from 1996 to 2001. All were offered regular mammograms, and nearly all accepted.
If the traditional view of cancer as a runaway monster were correct, it might be expected that the two groups would have roughly the same number of breast cancers, either detected at the end or found along the way. Instead, the researchers report, the women who had regular routine screenings had 22 percent more cancers. For every 100,000 women who were screened regularly, 1,909 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer over six years, compared with 1,564 women who did not have regular screening.
Of course the old guard is quick to point out that the findings do not mean that the mammograms caused breast cancer! That’s false: evidence shows that there is a significant increase in the risk of breast cancer, caused by mammograms. The “guidelines” are no more than a smokescreen for profiteering, not science.
John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. – a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor, and one of the leading experts in the world on the dangers of radiation – presents compelling evidence in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, that over 50 percent of the death-rate from cancer is in fact induced by x-rays.
The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, which is about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray (remember, mass screening with chest x-rays was stopped, because it caused more cancer than it detected!)
Dr. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and author of an amazing book “The Politics of Cancer Revisited” has described the guidelines as a sham. According to him “They were conscious, chosen, politically expedient acts by a small group of people for the sake of their own power, prestige and financial gain, resulting in suffering and death for millions of women. They fit the classification of ‘crimes against humanity.”
It remains that, one way or the other, the die-hards have got to face the fact they are killing women. Either the mammograms cause cancer, in which case they should stop, or there is spontaneous disappearance of many cancers, which is being thwarted by medical intervention.
They can’t dissemble their way out of it in both directions at once!
The problem, as always, is money and greed. Doctors want to make money out of patients who don’t need any medical care, as well as the ones who are sick. Dropping the present approach would mean their revenues would suffer.
The fact remains that many actions are carried out in the US that other countries don’t do. Here there is the insistence in biopsying every lump. That means women with no real cancer are being subjected to unnecessary procedures and run the risk of being inadvertently diagnosed as having cancer, being subjected to chemo and dying as a result.
These are hot claims, so let me steer back towards the main point I’m making, which is that doctors may “cause” a lot of cancer and unnecessary deaths, by refusing to allow that this disease will resolve naturally.
Let me repeat that, in simple societies—like traditional Eskimos, the Hunzas in the Himalayas and Amazon Indians—the disease is virtually unknown. Even in Western society, cancer was very rare, until the advent of modern technological medicine. A nineteenth century physician at one of London’s main hospitals (Charing Cross) told his medical students that lung cancer was “One of the rare forms of a rare disease. You may probably pass the rest of your student’s life without seeing another example of it”.
Don’t get caught by the phoney propaganda argument we are living longer than ever, so more cancer is showing up. We are living longer on average but septuagenarians and octogenarians have always existed. Until the twentieth century, they just didn’t die of cancer.
In any case, there is more to this; not only were cancers rarer but Victorians seemed to withstand the disease better than our modern citizen. It was not feared nearly so much, for this reason. Take breast cancer: the average survival time was 4 years, with a maximum time of 18 years. But this was almost all due to stage 3 and 4 (late) cancers.
If Victorian physicians had had our modern sophistication in diagnostic equipment, they would have picked up stage 1 and 2, so dramatically extending average post-diagnosis survival times. The average may well then have shot up to 10 years and maximum to 40- 50 years!
Let’s go back to the Norwegian study that is so exciting and controversial:
The study’s design was not perfect but, as the researchers say, the ideal study is not feasible. It would entail screening women, randomly assigning them to have their screen-detected cancers treated or not, and following them to see how many untreated cancers went away on their own.
Although the researchers cannot completely rule out other explanations, they went to a lot of trouble to show these other interpretations are not valid.
A leading alternative explanation for the results is that the women having regular scans used hormone therapy for menopause and the other women did not. But the researchers calculated that hormone use could account for no more than 3 percent of the effect (that is, 3% of the 20% increase, not 3% of total).
Maybe mammography was more sensitive in the second six-year period, able to pick up more tumors. But, the authors report, mammography’s sensitivity did not appear to have changed.
Or perhaps the screened women had a higher cancer risk to begin with. But, the investigators say, the groups were remarkably similar in their risk factors.
Dr. Smith of the American Cancer Society, predictably, said the study was flawed and the interpretation incorrect. The reason, he said, is that mammography is not perfect, and cancers that are missed on one round of screening will be detected on another.
But the study authors debunked this too. Chief author Dr. Welch stated that he and his colleagues considered that possibility, too. And, he said, their analysis found subsequent mammograms could not make up the difference.
The fact remains that now doctors must seriously worry themselves that they are blunderingly wrong by rushing to treatment. Imagine how much better it would be to say to a woman “This is not a real cancer, it will probably go away, don’t worry about it.”
Latest posts by Dr. Keith Scott Mumby (see all)
- This bone disease kills more women than breast cancer - July 2, 2015
- The hidden tick danger you’ve never even heard of - May 29, 2015
- Beat Breast Cancer with this “Diet Trick” - September 25, 2011