Breast cancer : myth and matricide
Pat Rattigan
MISDIAGNOSIS
In the year 2006,
in the UK, the medical orthodoxy diagnosed around 43,000 cases of breast
cancer. Approximately 13,000 women, who had been previously diagnosed
with the condition, died in that year.
Breast
cancer is a whole body, systemic, constitutional disease, involving a tumour
which has the ability to metastasise. This is not the spreading of the
cancer to previously healthy tissue, elsewhere in the body. Cancer is already
established before a tumour appears : metastasis is possible only in the
patient who has genuine cancer.
In
1969, the leading US cancer statistician, Prof. H B Jones (1) told the American Cancer
Society, (2)
“Beginning in 1940, through redefinition of terms,
various grades of malignancy were classed as cancer. After that date, the
proportion of “cancer” cures having “normal” life-expectancy increased rapidly,
corresponding to the fraction of questionable diagnosis included.”
According to Dr Irwin Bross PhD (3) –
"If you are a woman who has been diagnosed as 'early
breast cancer'...there is one simple scientific fact that you need to
know...more than half the time the pathologist is wrong - it is not actually
breast cancer. Chances are this tumour lacks the ability to metastasize ... the
hallmark of a genuine cancer. The world's first controlled trial of adjuvant
therapies for breast cancer was centralised in my department. Dr Leslie
Blumenson and I ... made a surprising discovery. More than half of the patients
... had tumours ... that were more like benign lesions.
Our discovery was highly
unpopular with the medical profession. Admitting the truth could lead to
malpractice suits by women who had lost a breast because of an incorrect
medical diagnosis. The furious doctors at the National Cancer Institute.took
our highly successful breast cancer research program away from us ... they
eventually succeeded in suppressing our findings and blocking new
publications...."
“…more than half the time
..” :
is a conservative figure . One breast oncologist stated, on television, “80% of my patients do not return for further
treatment”.
A declaration which demands analysis.
As
there is no correlation between tumour removal/reduction with
surgery/dugs/radiation and patient survival i.e.. the successful treatment of cancer is not possible
through orthodox methods,
it has to be assumed that the 80%:
1. Went away and died without further treatment : unlikely .
2. Switched to unorthodox treatment : possible but unlikely,. Or
3. Were misdiagnosed.
If we
accept a figure of 70% misdiagnosed we are left with a 30% correct diagnosis
rate: 30% of 43,000 is around 13,000. For the woman who has
genuine breast cancer, and who chooses the orthodox package, incidence-rate
equals death-rate, Divine Intervention excepted.
:In 1975, Prof H B Jones (1) announced:
“It is utter
nonsense to claim that catching cancer symptoms early enough will increase the
patient's chances of survival. If one has cancer, and opts to do nothing at
all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation,
chemotherapy or surgery; other than when used in immediate life-threatening
situation.
With every cancer patient who keeps in excellent
physical shape .., there’s a high chance that the body will find its own
defence against the cancer. He may have many good years left in good health. He
shouldn’t squander them by being made into a hopeless invalid through radical
medical intervention which has zero chance of extending his life.”
According
to Sainsbury, Johnston, Haward. -
Lancet 1999 353 p1132:
"Patients
who presented early and were treated in less than 30 days had significantly
worse outcomes... the drive for all women with possible breast cancer to be
seen within 14 days ... is not supported by this study."
The largest ever breast cancer screening
trial was directed, in Canada, by Prof. A Miller and involved 50,000 women.
Half were given periodic X-ray screening and half were just physically
examined. Within the radiated group the death-rate was "significantly higher."
According to Miller, mammography, in itself a physical and radioactive assault,
leads to surgery for tiny lumps then to secondary tumours. The treatments "...surgery, the anaesthetic and radiotherapy... were
interfering with immunity."
Miller.(4)
"Mammography screening is a
profit-driven technology posing risks compounded by unreliability. Contrary to
popular belief and assurances by … the
cancer establishment … mammography is
not a technique for early diagnosis. In fact, a breast cancer has usually been
present for about eight years before it can finally be detected.
Mammography
poses a wide range of risks of which women worldwide still remain uninformed.
The evidence that routine mammography screening allows early detection and
treatment of breast cancer, thereby reducing mortality, is at best highly
questionable” (10)
MASTECTOMY (2)
As breast cancer is not localized, the notion that the removal of the breasts, for any reason, could be in any way beneficial has no basis in reality. Mastectomy is never anything other than grievous bodily harm.
In a Swedish
study involving 10 million people over a 70-year period, it was found that
breast cancer is around 70% environmental, a fact not given much national media
coverage, as it puts the spotlight on
the polluting industries.(5)
In an analysis of 52 studies involving over
160,000 women, the researchers concluded
“Women with a family history of
breast cancer are unlikely to develop breast cancer themselves and even less
likely to die from it.”
(6)
“Breast-cancer patients carrying two well-known genes linked
to the disease have the same survival chances as non-carriers of the genes who
develop the disease”, according to a study by Israeli and Canadian researchers.
The study of 1,545 breast-cancer patients found 10-year survival rates of 49%
for women carrying BRCA1, 48% for carriers of BRCA2 and 51% for non-carriers,
including deaths from other causes. The slight differences weren't
statistically significant The finding gives women who know they have the
mutation and their doctors another factor to consider as they ponder such
precautionary measures as prophylactic surgery before the onset of the
disease.” (7)
Too
late for some.
Medical
malpractice is defined as " ..
improper or injurious or surgical treatment through carelessness, ignorance or
intent ...". Further: "..
a more serious criminal lack of care arising from deliberate disregard for the
care and safety of other persons constitutes manslaughter." (8)
CANCER
RESEARCH
The
failure is deliberate. Before
they started trading as "Cancer Research UK", the Imperial
Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign had around 170 years of
fundraising between them .When they started, cancer was a rare disease. Now it
is out-of-control : 40% - and rising - of the UK population have, or will
develop cancer. A rate expected to rise by 50% by 2020.
CRUK are collecting over £400,000,000 - and
rising - per year. None of which will be spent
on research into safe, effective treatments. CRUK will not fund any research
which is a threat to The Cancer Business.
"A SOLUTION TO CANCER
WOULD MEAN THE TERMINATION OF RESEARCH PROGRAMMES, THE OBSOLESCENCE OF SKILLS,
THE END OF DREAMS OF PERSONAL GLORY. TRIUMPH OVER CANCER WOULD DRY UP
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SELF-PERPETUATING CHARITIES...IT WOULD MORTALLY THREATEN THE
PRESENT CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENT BY RENDERING OBSOLETE THE EXPENSIVE SURGICAL,
RADIOLOGICAL AND CHEMOTHERAPEUTIC TREATMENTS IN WHICH SO MUCH MONEY, TRAINING
AND EQUIPMENT IS INVESTED..THE NEW THERAPY MUST BE DISBELIEVED, DENIED,
DISCOURAGED AND DISALLOWED AT ALL COSTS, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL TESTING RESULTS
AND, PREFERABLY, WITHOUT ANY TESTING AT ALL." The
Houston/Null Analysis.
Increasing numbers of non-mushroom women (those not
happy being kept in the dark and fed manure) have taken charge of their own
destinies and have recorded their experiences with safe, effective breast
cancer treatments.
One, a professor of geochemistry, successfully treated
herself, through the elimination of dairy produce, and standard holistic cancer
therapy advice.
"Breakthrough Breast Cancer" called this
regime "worrying". Breakthrough was founded as a fund-raiser for
another tentacle of the cancer syndicate, The Institute of Cancer Research, and
is funded by the drugs industry, including Zeneca, makers of tamoxifen. In
return, they provide access, for the drug boys, to The All Party Parliamentary
Group on Breast Cancer. Understandably, non-drug approaches to cancer and
prevention are not part of Breakthrough's ideas on the disease: “screening and
scalpel/drug/radiation treatments are the way forward - none of this
alternative nonsense”. Nutritional cures are definitely "worrying":
also very worrying, to Breakthrough and the rest of the cancer gang, is the
chance that UK women might discover that the main difference between the rural
Chinese woman who has a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing breast cancer and the
British woman , who has a 1 in 10 chance, is dairy produce in the diet. The All Party MPs have not, as yet, been able to see
through Breakthrough.
In the 1920s Dr Otto Warburg carried out a great deal of work on cancer’s basic mechanism and was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1932. Warburg’s work clearly demonstrated that cancer is, fundamentally, a relatively simple disease where cell oxygen levels fall to a level sufficiently low enough for the cell to change in nature. Warburg defined cancer as a condition where the respiration of oxygen in the normal cell is replaced by the fermentation of glucose. (3)
Today, as planetary oxygen levels fall and pollution increasingly drives oxygen from the cell, cancer rates continually increase. CRUK-component, the ICRF issued a statement - "One of the biggest myths in recent years is that there is a cancer epidemic caused by exposure to radiation, pollution, pesticides and food additives." The fact that no genuine cancer research organisation would go out of its way to protect the industries mainly responsible for the incidence of cancer is completely lost on the CRUK-tee-shirted celebrity and media supporters, the "Cycle/Race for Life" disciples and the other simpletons, running marathons or shaking tubs in the street.
Cancer
and viruses need anaerobic – airless – conditions. This has given rise to the
dangerous myth that viruses cause cancer, whereas a virus is, merely, sometimes
found at the site of a tumour. There is no evidence of a causal link.
In 1966, after
his efforts had been ignored by the cancer industry for over thirty years,
Warburg addressed a group of fellow Nobel Laureates, reiterating his views and
concluded:
“ .. nobody today can say that one does
not know what cancer and its prime cause be. On the contrary, there is no
disease whose prime cause is better known. How long prevention will be avoided
depends on how long the prophets of agnosticism will succeed in inhibiting the
application of scientific knowledge in the cancer field. In the meantime,
millions … must die of cancer unnecessarily.” (9)
It
needs emphasising that this was in 1966, referring to research that was considered scientifically sound
enough to achieve a Nobel Prize in the early 1930s. Knowledge that has now been available for over 70 years. Dr
Warburg’s work has never been refuted: just avoided. As the cause has been
known, so has the correct treatment.
Enlightened
practitioners have always successfully treated cancer victims using direct
oxygen therapy and/or a regime of raw, organic, vegan, alkalising, oxygenating
nutrition.
As a substitute for sensible,
patient-centred therapies, working with body’s inherent healing ability, early
detection has become the obsession; the tabernacle on the altar of orthodox
breast cancer management with mammography as the sacrament. The
catch-it-early-and-modern-therapy-will-save-you mantra is fed to all women
without any evidence-based reality to sustain it.
Misdiagnosis
and the subsequent mutilating surgery, drugs and radiation are carried out to
satisfy the decrees of The Great God of Consensus Medicine. A very jealous
Deity whose two main demands are that the practices of His High Priests are
never subject to question and, equally important, that the medical bureaucracy
are not placed in any position whereby they could face litigation. In practice
this means just-in-case diagnoses, X-rays and antibiotics in excessive
doses, a huge incidence of totally unnecessary surgery ... and the rest of it;
irrespective of the effect on the patient.
The patient who has real cancer is usually
killed by the treatment and recorded as having "died of cancer".
The patient who is wrongly diagnosed is more likely to
survive the treatment. The misdiagnosed are left minus one or two breasts, damaged by drugs and
radiation, constantly worried that the “cancer” might “return”, and more likely
to develop the disease, in the future, from the effects of the treatment for a
condition they never had.
These are, of course, the “breast cancer cures.”.
The periodic parading, in the press or on television, of some - preferably
famous - woman whose imaginary cancer has been "cured" encourages ever more lemmings
to rush forward for the physical/radioactive assault of mammography.
It also convinces the real cancer sufferer to go down the same treatment
route, i.e. a regime diametrically opposed to that which is needed for survival
: with the inevitable fatal result.
1.
Dept of Physics & Physiology. Univ. of Ca., Berkeley
2.
Report on Cancer ACS 11th annual Science Writers
Conference, New Orleans Mar 7 1969.
3.
Former director of statistics, Roswell Pk Memorial.
4.
Mass mammography
Skrabanek P. Univ. of Dublin.
5.
Dr P Mansfield
Ecologist July 2002.
6.
Dr V Beal ICRF
Lancet 2001; 358 : 1389-1399.
7.
Periera J Wall St
Journal online July 12 2007.
8.
Dr B A Richards
Topic of Cancer Pergamon Press 1982.
9.
June 30, 1966 at
Lindau, Lake Constance, Germany.
10. Epstein,
Bertell, and Seaman , International Journal of Health Services, 31(3):605-615,
2001
Patrick
Rattigan N.D Jan 08 hera@nemesisawake.com
NEMESIS PO Box 73,
Chesterfield S41 0YZ, UK.
also