How Hormone Balance Can Help Save Your Life

[Guest guest]

How Hormone Balance Can Help Save Your Life

Apr 09, 2005 16:49 PDT

 

Breast Cancer Chapter One

 

http://www.johnleemd.com/store/breast_chp_one.html

 

WHAT YOUR DOCTOR MAY NOT TELL YOU ABOUT BREAST CANCER

 

How Hormone Balance Can Help Save Your Life

 

By John R. Lee, M.D., David Zava Ph.D., and Virginia Hopkins

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF THE BREAST CANCER INDUSTRY

 

Why We Can't Seem to Prevent or Cure Breast Cancer

 

Why is modern medicine going nowhere in its attempts to treat breast

cancer? Our research has found that the answer to this question lies

primarily with the politics of medicine, the cancer industry, and

the

industries that create the pollutants that contribute to breast

cancer.

We believe that the only way to truly prevent and treat breast

cancer is

to go outside the current way of doing things in medicine and stop

the

wholesale pollution of our planet with petrochemicals, but the

forces

that would keep things the same are very powerful and entrenched.

That's

why, just as they did with hormone replacement therapy (HRT), women

need

to educate themselves about pollutants, about breast cancer, and

about

alternative treatments. They need to rebel against ineffective and

harmful treatments, and do what they can to teach their doctors.

 

Over the past few decades, conventional medicine has done very

little to

make any meaningful difference in what will happen to you if you get

breast cancer, and virtually nothing it has done has reduced the

incidence of the disease. The harsh reality is, if you get breast

cancer, you'll get more treatment than you did 50 years ago, you and

your insurance company will spend a lot more money, and if it's

fatal

you may gain a few more months of life (usually of very poor

quality),

but statistics clearly tell us that conventional medicines for

treating

breast cancer such as tamoxifen, radiation, and chemotherapy just

aren't

working in the long run. The way breast cancer is currently treated

is a

way of doing something in the face of not knowing what else to do.

If

you have an invasive or nonlocal breast cancer, your chances of

dying

from it are still about one in three, the same as they have been for

decades.

 

The incidence of breast cancer (how many women are getting it) is

steadily rising, and the numbers are appalling: According to the

National Cancer Institute, breast cancer incidence rates have

increased

by more than 40 percent from 1973 to 1998. In the year 2000

approximately 182,800 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Since

1950 breast cancer incidence has risen by 60 percent. Some will

argue

that this is due to better and earlier detection. But even for women

over 80 years of age, where this early detection issue is doubtful,

the

incidence of breast cancer has risen the past 30 years from 1 in 30

women to 1 in 8 women. The American Cancer Society estimated that in

the

year 2000, 552,200 people in the United States would die of cancer,

and

40,800, or just over 7 percent, of those would be women dying of

breast

cancer. This means that about 15 percent of women who die of cancer

are

dying of breast cancer. These are the annual statistics for the

United

States, but it's even more sobering to realize that worldwide about

1,670,000 women have breast cancer.

 

The mortality (death rate) from breast cancer is also staggering. If

you

combine mortality rates from the United States and Canada (which

have

the highest rates of breast cancer in the world), in North America a

woman dies of breast cancer every twelve minutes.

 

Do Radiation, Tamoxifen, Mammograms, and Chemotherapy Help or Hurt?

 

How can we be so bold as to state that conventional medical

treatments

for breast cancer aren't working? It's very well documented. It

seems as

if every time we open a medical journal lately, there's an article

showing that conventional breast cancer treatments are ineffective,

harmful, or both. Just in the past few years, major studies

published in

prestigious peer-reviewed journals meeting all the conventional

medical

criteria for so-called evidence-based medicine have shown that:

 

Mammograms don't really save lives (G. Sjonell, et al.,

Lakartidningen

96 (1999): 904-913.

Radiation doesn't really save lives (Lancet, 22 May 2000).

Tamoxifen doesn't really save lives (Mitchell, et al., Journal of

the

National Cancer Institute, November 1999).

Chemotherapy doesn't save lives (which isn't news; we've known this

for

a long time).

So what's left for the conventional medical doctor to treat breast

cancer patients with? Nothing but the same surgical removal of the

cancer that they were doing 50 years ago. More American physicians

need

to face the hard, cold facts that current therapies just aren't

working

and open their eyes to alternatives for prevention and treatment of

breast cancer. Let's take a broad look at the current treatments.

 

Radiation

 

Radiation is the most common treatment for breast cancer following

surgery, and yet a recent article in the prestigious British medical

journal Lancet showed that this treatment is not working. In fact,

while

using local radiation to treat breast cancer reduces deaths from

this

disease by 13.2 percent, it increases death from other causes,

mostly

heart disease, by 21.2 percent. The obvious conclusion of this

study:

" The treatment was a success but the patient died. "

 

In other words, the radiation obliterates the breast cancer tumor in

a

small percentage of women, but in the process it causes many of them

to

die from other diseases. Proponents of newer and more localized

radiation procedures are claiming that it doesn't cause the damage

the

older radiation techniques do, but at present this is only a claim

and

not backed up by long-term follow-up. This means that there's no

long-term benefit from using radiation to treat breast cancers,

because

even though the cancer may not recur at the site of the radiation,

the

overall chances of survival stay the same or are slightly worse. And

yet

despite the fact that radiation helps so few women—and eventually

kills

many of those whom it helped in the short term—it remains the

standard

of care in medicine for women who have breast cancer. How can this

be?

It's because conventional medicine has little else to offer that

reduces

death even by 13.2 percent. If you were starving and someone handed

you

a bowl of moldy old rice, you'd gratefully eat it up because it's

better

than nothing.

 

Despite this study, published in one of the most prestigious medical

journals in the world, if you have breast cancer your doctor will

most

likely insist that you undergo radiation treatments rather than

exploring possibly safer alternatives not popular among conventional

doctors.

 

Treating women with radiation who later die of heart disease caused

by

radiation damage also affects breast cancer statistics. It means

that

the diagnosed cause of death was shifted from breast cancer to

cardiovascular disease. As more and more breast cancer patients are

subjected to radiotherapy, fewer will be said to die from breast

cancer,

but more will be said to die of radiation-induced heart disease.

These

deaths aren't counted in breast cancer statistics, but they should

be if

we are to have a truthful picture of what's happening to women who

get

this disease.

 

Tamoxifen

 

In the same issue of The Lancet as the above study on radiation was

a

curious letter from Oxford professor Sir Richard Peto, with a graph

showing that breast cancer deaths rose about 20 percent from 1960 to

1985. From 1985 to 1997 breast cancer deaths were said to have

decreased

about 20 percent. Without speculating on the cause of the 1985 rise

in

breast cancer mortality, or citing the sources of his information,

Sir

Peto instead addressed only the matter of the recent decline.

 

An aside: The probable cause of the rise in breast cancer deaths was

the

prescription of unopposed estrogen (not balanced with progesterone)

to

menopausal women, a common practice from the early 1950s to the

mid-1970s. While the medical community acknowledged that this

practice

caused endometrial (uterine) cancer, it never admitted that it also

caused breast cancer. From the mid-1970s, doctors were instructed to

prescribe synthetic progestins along with the estrogen to prevent

the

endometrial cancer. This is also when the incidence of hysterectomy

skyrocketed: Women felt so terrible on progestins that they refused

to

take them, so doctors offered them a hysterectomy so they would no

longer have to take the progestins, and could take estrogen only. To

add

insult to injury (literally), it was common practice (and still is

in

some places) to remove a woman's ovaries along with her uterus as a

preventive for ovarian cancer. This misguided practice leads to many

other health problems, including osteoporosis, heart disease,

fatigue,

and a diminished quality of life due to low libido, hot flashes, and

other symptoms of " instant menopause. "

 

Back to the supposed decline in breast cancer deaths: Because of the

" suddenness " of the decline, Sir Richard felt it was not due to

fewer

breast cancers but more likely to " changes in the way breast cancer

is

diagnosed and treated. " He speculated that it was " not from a single

research breakthrough " but from " the adoption of many

interventions, "

whatever that means. He was later quoted in other news articles as

giving credit for the fall in breast cancer deaths to the

antiestrogen

drug tamoxifen.

 

We hope that those promoting Tamoxifen remember to mention how many

women taking it suffer from blood clots, deterioration of vision,

and

diminished quality of life (hot flashes, night sweats). Also, how

many

women have been forced to have a hysterectomy due to a particularly

aggressive form of tamoxifen-caused uterine cancer? It's rarely

mentioned that women actually die of tamoxifeninduced uterine

cancer.

When these women die of uterine cancer instead of breast cancer, it

improves the breast cancer statistics. This makes tamoxifen look

good,

but it's a moot issue to the women in question.

 

If the side effects of tamoxifen are this bad, why is it being used

at

all, and why is it being trumpeted so loudly as the great cure-all,

to

the extent that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) even approved

its

use as a preventive? It's the moldy rice problem again. It's the

lesser

of many evils; it's better than nothing. Very few other FDA-approved

pharmaceuticals have been made available to oncologists treating

breast

cancer. Theoretically—on paper, in test tubes, and in laboratory

animals

used as models for human breast cancer—tamoxifen looks promising,

and

the rationale for using it is based on a solid scientific

foundation:

Estrogens increase the rate that breast cancer cells proliferate,

and

tamoxifen slows the rate of cell proliferation by acting as an

antiestrogen.

 

Unfortunately, breast cancer cells in a test tube and laboratory

animals

can't really explain to us how they feel, and don't live long enough

to

give us a genuine appreciation for long-term health risks. Research

investigating the effects of tamoxifen on hormone-dependent cancers

looks good in the short term. However, in reality, tamoxifen is

unnatural to the human body, and these side effects are the body's

warning signals that something is terribly wrong.

 

Tamoxifen has been available for 25 years and its effect on breast

cancer prevention is still being debated: This in and of itself

should

tell us something. Two studies, a five-year placebo-controlled one

from

England in 1992, and a nine-year placebo-controlled one from Italy

in

1998, showed no difference in cancer incidence between tamoxifen-

treated women and controls. The only large study in the United

States

was cut short, supposedly because the incidence of breast cancer

dropped

so much in the tamoxifen group that they couldn't justify

withholding

this treatment from the placebo group. It's worth noting, however,

that

the trial was stopped at around the same time that breast cancer

began

to reappear, despite the tamoxifen, in the two European studies.

 

The lessons we learned from those studies are that in some women

tamoxifen may put a breast cancer to sleep for a few years, and in

women

who have breast cancer it may slow the rate of recurrence for a few

years. But in the long term it tends to do more harm than good.

Again,

the only reason this is such a popular treatment right now is that

it

seems to oncologists to be better than doing nothing, which many of

them

believe is the only other viable option open to them. But as you'll

discover, it's definitely not the only option available.

 

For the most part, it's only in the United States that doctors still

believe tamoxifen significantly prevents or reverses breast cancer.

In

fact, now even the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has come out with

a

statement that in all but a very narrow group of women under the age

of

sixty, tamoxifen may do more harm than good in terms of preventing

cancer. Despite this, the FDA just approved the use of tamoxifen to

treat a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ

(DCIS).

You'll understand later in the book why we believe this is an

outrageous

move.

 

Mammography

 

Like tamoxifen, radiation, and chemotherapy, mammography is big

business

these days. Mammography is also conventional medicine's only real

answer

to breast cancer " prevention, " although it isn't preventing cancer

at

all, it's simply detecting it.

 

Countless advertisements and physicians are telling women to have

mammograms. But the value of this procedure is far from clear. We

all

know women diagnosed with breast cancer that wasn't detected by

mammography, and we all know that mammograms present a real risk of

false positive and false negative findings. The test procedure is

unpleasant and the radiation is potentially harmful. Both tissue

damage

and radiation are known risk factors for breast cancer, so it may

even

be logical to assume that mammography can contribute to breast

cancer.

 

A summer 2000 study published in the journal Spine, and looking at

data

collected over 40 years, showed that women with scoliosis who

received

many diagnostic X rays during childhood and adolescence have a 70

percent higher risk of breast cancer than women in the general

population. The more X rays a woman was exposed to, and the higher

the

dose of radiation, the greater her risk of breast cancer. Although

the

dose of radiation in a typical X ray is now much lower than it was

when

these women were being X rayed, the point is still valid: Radiation

is a

potent risk factor for breast cancer, its effect is cumulative, and

mammography involves forcefully squashing the breast and then

shooting

radiation through it.

 

It has been claimed that mammography lowers the risk of dying from

breast cancer. Proponents argue that mammography can detect breast

tumors a year or so earlier than simple palpation such as breast

self-exams. This early detection, so the argument goes, leads to

earlier

treatment and a lower risk of breast cancer mortality. Statistics,

it is

claimed, have validated this argument.

 

Many statisticians, however, disagree. Statistics are not immune

from

biases, which include mechanical factors (use of different measuring

instruments in different subjects), study methodology, conscious or

unconscious assumptions, age of subjects, socioeconomic factors,

faulty

randomization of subjects and controls, duration of observation, and

other confounding factors.

 

More than 15 years ago Dr. John C. Bailar III observed that counting

survival time after treatment creates a bias in most mammography

studies

because mammography detects breast tumors a year before they would

have

been found by palpation. He pointed out that subjects with breast

tumors

found by palpation have lived at least a year prior to the time when

they would have been found by mammography. When this year is added

to

the survival time of the control women (those who did not use

mammography), their survival results match those of subject women

whose

tumors were found by mammography.

 

This means that the apparent difference in survival after treatment

was

due not to earlier treatment, as a result of mammography, but merely

to

starting the counting of survival time one year earlier among

mammography subjects. When this factor is included in the

statistical

analysis, the so-called benefit of mammography and earlier treatment

disappears. Dr. Bailar, now professor of epidemiology and

biostatistics

at McGill University and senior scientist in the Office of Disease

Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, called this the lead-time bias.

 

This should not be surprising. For a breast cancer cell to become

large

enough to detect by palpation, the cancer has usually been growing

for

about ten years. If found one year earlier by mammography, the

cancer

has been growing for about nine years, which is plenty of time to

spawn

metastases if the cancer is prone to do that. The one-year

difference

between palpation and mammography detection is ultimately of little

importance.

 

Does mammography truly save lives? If you read the numerous ads for

it,

you might think the case is closed—of course it does. If you read

the

studies themselves, the answer isn't so clear. For example, a 1999

epidemiological study found no decrease in breast cancer mortality

in

Sweden, where mammography screening has been recommended since 1985.

 

As a result, two Swedish scientists reviewed all published

mammography

trials to evaluate their methodological quality. Their purpose was

to

ascertain whether or not mammography truly saved lives. Their

findings

are worth a close look.

 

In their analysis of eight different clinical studies on

mammography,

the authors found six of them seriously flawed by baseline

imbalances

and/or inconsistencies of randomization. The flaws were sufficient

to

nullify the studies' claims of a benefit from mammography. The two

adequately randomized trials found no effect of mammography

screening on

breast cancer mortality.

 

The meta-analysis conclusion is clear. Since there is no reliable

evidence that mammography screening decreases breast cancer

mortality,

mammography screening for breast cancer is unjustified. This means

that

physicians should not order routine mammography screening.

 

However, mammograms have become a substitute for breast selfexams.

If

you stop having mammograms, it becomes essential that you examine

your

own breasts thoroughly at least once a month. If you're

premenopausal,

you should examine them shortly after your period, when hormone

levels

are low, so that premenopausal lumps aren't confused with a

cancerous

lump. You should also examine your breasts in the mirror and look

for

any unusual skin abnormalities or dimpling. After a few months

you'll

become very familiar with how your breasts feel, and you'll be able

to

detect very small abnormalities.

 

Chemotherapy

 

It's difficult to make generalizations about chemotherapy these

days,

because there are so many different kinds, most of them extremely

poorly

studied: The women who agree to try new chemotherapies are guinea

pigs

for a type of treatment with a notoriously poor track record. Like

most

other aspects of the breast cancer industry, there's little

agreement

about what constitutes chemotherapy. We'll make the generalization

that

chemotherapy is an attempt to poison the body just short of death in

the

hope of killing the cancer before the entire body is killed. Most of

the

time it doesn't work. There are new chemotherapies that target

specific

parts of the cancer process, but none have proven themselves truly

effective in stopping the entire process.

 

Some chemotherapy does prolong life for a few months, but generally

at

the high price of devastating side effects, and if a woman does

happen

to get lucky and survive that bout of cancer, her body is

permanently

damaged; recurrence rates are high. The use of chemotherapy is

purely a

gamble, and we don't think it's worth taking. Sometimes it works,

and

sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes it makes things worse. Precious

little is known about why it works or doesn't, and it seems much

smarter

to find an alternative therapy with a good track record that will

both

support your body in fighting off the cancer and promote health.

 

There are some chemotherapylike approaches to fighting metastatic

cancer, including inducing a high fever for a number of days and

insulin

potentiation therapy (see the Resources section at the end of the

book),

that hold much promise with less potential damage done to the body.

They

are much more widely used in Europe than the United States. They may

never be widely available in the United States, because there's no

patent medicine to sell. Europe is decades ahead of the us in its

approach to treating cancer.

 

The Breast Cancer Numbers

 

It's important that women understand how much breast cancer numbers

are

misused and abused, juggled, twiddled, and tweaked, depending upon

who

wants you to believe what. So let's keep it simple:

 

Breast cancer is the most common cause of death from cancer among

women

between the ages of 18 and 54, and it's the most common cause of

death

period among women aged 45 to 50.

 

Women less than 45 years old have a 26 percent higher risk of a

recurrence of breast cancer compared to older women. The types of

cancer

that these middle-aged women are dying from are not the mostly

benign,

" 99 percent curable " DCIS " cancers " that have been detected since

the

early 1980s with mammograms (thus increasing the rate of detection);

they're deadly metastatic cancers that kill quickly once they start

to

spread.

 

According to the Centers for Disease Control, cancer ranks higher

than

heart disease in terms of age-adjusted death rates among people

under

age 65 in the United States. While heart disease has declined,

cancer

has not.

 

Breast cancer is the second most common form of cancer in women

after

lung cancer, which is almost always due to smoking cigarettes.

 

Statistical Shell Games

 

The breast cancer industry has been playing a statistical shell game

with the disease by including ductal carcinoma in situ as a breast

cancer diagnosis when in fact it's rarely fatal, with or without

treatment. Many oncologists like to say that DCIS is " 99 percent

curable. " (Since DCIS wasn't detectable-and thus not diagnosed or

treated-until the advent of mammograms, we don't even really know

the

true nature or course of untreated DCIS, because it has always been

treated if diagnosed.) We'll go into this in more detail later in

the

book, but for now, we want to focus on the fact that some 30 percent

of

breast cancers are DCIS.

 

Given that DCIS is rarely fatal, let's make some gross

generalizations

to illustrate a point. If we simply eliminate DCIS from breast

cancer

statistics, and thus subtract 30 percent of those who have survived

breast cancer from the statistics, we would then not have a recent

drop

of 20 percent (as claimed by some) but rather a rise of 10 percent

in

breast cancer mortality rates. This is a crude way of making the

point,

but it's important to consider when a doctor is using these types of

statistics to justify a treatment. For example, let's say a doctor

justifies putting you on tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer based on

the

now much-quoted " fact " that breast cancer deaths have dropped by 20

percent thanks to tamoxifen (see chapter 12 for details). If you

know

going into the doctor's office that this is a highly questionable

statistic, you'll be more empowered to make the right decisions for

yourself. In fact, we suspect that if women with lowgrade DCIS

weren't

subjected to tamoxifen, chemo, and radiation, their survival rate

would

stay the same-but the women wouldn't be damaged for life by the

treatments.

 

A Word about Prevention

 

Of course the key to reducing the incidence of breast cancer is

prevention, but prevention is a dirty word in the breast cancer

industry

unless you're referring to tamoxifen or mammograms, neither of which

is

really remotely like prevention. TV personality and author Bob

Arnot,

M.D., wrote a book called The Breast Cancer Prevention Diet, which

contained mostly good, solid, practical dietary advice associated

with

reducing the known risk factors for breast cancer. Sadly, he was

terribly trashed by the American media for using the word

prevention, as

if he were suggesting that diet was a cure-all (he wasn't), and as

if he

were somehow hurting women by suggesting that a healthy diet could

fend

off breast cancer (it can only help). Arnot was an unfortunate

victim of

the intense breast cancer political establishment, which savagely

attacks those who stray outside conventional medical boundaries and

dare

to suggest that something besides surgery, chemotherapy, radiation,

and

tamoxifen might be helpful.

 

It may shock you to know that despite breast cancer being the

leading

cause of death among middle-aged women in the United States, only 5

percent of the National Cancer Institute's budget is allocated to

research on cancer prevention. And just in case you thought some

other

branch of the U.S. government was going to pitch in with some

unbiased,

nondrug, prevention-oriented research, the enormously expensive,

taxpayer-financed Women's Breast Cancer Initiative will be

researching

only pharmaceutical drugs (Premarin plus various synthetic estrogens

and

progestins) in relationship to breast cancer. We believe this is

like

subsidizing the drug companies—which already make billions of

dollars in

profits after spending billions on advertising, public relations,

and

lobbying money to influence congressional decisions. Drug testing

should

be the responsibility of the drug companies, not taxpayers. To add

insult to injury, this is research that should have been done by the

drug companies decades ago, before the drugs were approved.

 

The prevention picture is equally dreary in other big cancer

organizations. When you log onto the Web site for the American

Cancer

Society (ACS) and access the area about cancer prevention, it

says, " At

this time, there is no way to prevent breast cancer. " This is true

only

in that we can't point to one cause and make it the culprit. The

reality

is that we know so much about what causes breast cancer that of

course

we know what we can do to help prevent it, in the same sense that we

know how to help prevent heart disease or diabetes.

 

For example, there's no question that you can significantly reduce

your

risk of these diseases by eating a wholesome diet, getting regular

moderate exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and managing stress

effectively. This same approach will also help you lower your risk

of

breast cancer by creating better overall health. The factors that

dictate which women get breast cancer and which don't include all of

the

practical commonsense solutions listed above. Yes, we all know a

health

food nut who has gotten breast cancer, but all the tofu and

vegetables

in the world may not make up for a devastating insult to breast

tissue

such as years of estrogen dominance or heavy exposure to pesticides

or

solvents. And then again they might make a difference, depending on

your

genetics and a dozen other factors. There is no one right formula

for

preventing breast cancer in every woman. The key to prevention of

breast

cancer is being aware of the various factors that cause the disease

and

avoiding them as much as possible, while at the same time being

aware of

what discourages cancerous growth in breast tissue and promoting

that

kind of lifestyle.

 

Preventive medicine is a multidimensional approach that takes the

entire

human—the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects—into

account, and optimizes health for that particular individual.

Conventional medicine, which is narrowly focused on diagnosing

disease

and then prescribing a drug to kill it, is a failure when it comes

to

treating cancer and chronic diseases such as diabetes and arthritis

because it ignores most of the human it's purporting to heal. And

this

is also why, in the year 2000, patient visits to alternative health

care

professionals exceeded visits to conventional physicians—despite the

fact that insurance doesn't cover most alternative health care. Take

a

middle-aged woman with breast cancer who is terribly depressed and

emotionally devastated because of a major trauma or loss in her

life:

All the drugs in the world aren't going to help her unless her

emotional

and spiritual needs are also addressed.

 

Prevention is also a dirty word during the richly endowed, muchhyped

and

-touted Breast Cancer Awareness Month that occurs every October,

because

it's largely sponsored and funded by the drug company that makes

tamoxifen. Ironically, this firm also manufactures some of the toxic

chemicals that help cause breast cancer. Breast Cancer Awareness

Month

is about being aware of cancer establishment treatments; there is

little

focus on preventing breast cancer or raising funds for independent

research. It really should be called Breast Cancer Unawareness

Month.

 

The Politics of the Breast Cancer Industry

 

To get to the bottom of why progress isn't being made in preventing

or

treating breast cancer, it's important to consider the breast cancer

industry and what makes it tick. The detection and treatment of

breast

cancer is hugely profitable in the United States, generating

billions of

dollars a year. All those mammograms, biopsies, lumpectomies, and

mastectomies, and all that chemotherapy, radiation, and tamoxifen,

create a substantial income stream for hospitals, physicians, their

support staff, those who make all the equipment, and especially

those

who make the drugs. And that doesn't even take into consideration

all

the research being done that's funded by the hundreds of millions of

dollars donated to nonprofit breast cancer organizations. Where's

the

financial incentive to go outside this framework?

 

If just a fraction of the research money now going into perpetuating

the

above industries were honestly put into prevention and effective

treatment, the mortality rate from breast cancer would very likely

drop

precipitously within a few years. But doctors keep squishing and

radiating women's breasts with mammograms, and possibly increasing

their

chances of getting breast cancer in the process, perhaps because

it's

lucrative and it's the standard of care. (Thanks to new technology

using

the—hopefully—safer techniques of thermography and ultrasound,

mammograms are becoming obsolete anyway, but it will probably take

decades to phase out all those expensive machines.) Doctors keep

doing

unneeded biopsies because they could get sued if they don't. They

keep

removing women's breasts and giving them toxic drugs because they

don't

know what else to do, and they feel they have to do something.

 

In its zeal to find a magic drug to stop breast cancer, the industry

has

forgotten about healing. It doesn't have time. It has to run the

patients through the HMO mill, get them out of the hospital faster,

cut

costs, avoid lawsuits, keep positions and funding, and make the drug

companies happy by promoting and prescribing their products so that

they'll keep funding the universities and hospitals.

 

Where does this leave the woman with breast cancer? She's terribly

afraid and confused, but she's also pretty much crushed by the cog

wheels of the medical machinery. Granted, she's what keeps the

machinery

going, but she certainly isn't the center of attention; she's a

supporting player in a much larger drama. She'll be shuffled off to

this

operating table or that radiation clinic not because it's

necessarily

best for her as an individual, and not because that's what's going

to

truly help and heal her, but because she fits into that slot, that's

how

the breast cancer industry machine works, and there's no other

choice.

What conventional medicine presents her with is that she's going to

die

if she doesn't do it. But if she sorts out the statistics

accurately,

she's going to realize that if she has a nonlocal (non-DCIS) cancer,

even if she does everything the doctors tell her to do there's still

a

one in three chance that she's going to die, from the cancer or as a

result of its treatment. These aren't great odds, and the path to

possible recovery is paved with treatments that can do permanent

damage.

 

 

An aside: In contrast, Dr. Zava recently had contact with a woman

who

was given three to six months to live in 1993 because she had a very

large, node-positive breast cancer tumor. She opted against

conventional

chemoradiation therapy and began juicing and progesterone therapy as

an

alternative. She called Dr. Zava (in 2001) to update him on her

progress

and get a saliva test! Granted, this is just one story, but we hear

them

on a regular basis.

 

To make matters even more confusing for the average woman with

breast

cancer who wants to do some research on whatever course of treatment

her

doctor is suggesting, a great deal of medical research needs to be

interpreted in light of the context in which it was conceived and/or

carried out. Unfortunately, much of it is sponsored by drug

companies,

so it's no surprise that thousands of small studies come out every

year

advocating some point that the companies want to pay a scientist to

support. You can come up with all kinds of medical theories and

support

them, with perfectly reputable references from peer-reviewed

journals

found on Medline, the National Library of Medicine's huge research

database.

 

The Politics of Medical Research and Media Information on Breast

Cancer

 

The politics of physician attitudes that don't support healing,

medical

research, and media information on breast cancer are disheartening,

because they're largely controlled by large drug companies with one

agenda: Sell more drugs.

 

At the root of physician beliefs and attitudes about breast cancer

treatment is the fact that the pharmaceutical industry now

powerfully

influences both medical education and research. A recent Journal of

the

American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that 31 percent of

medical

school funding comes from governmental and pharmaceutical grants; we

think this is a gross underestimate. In addition, drug company money

is

the driving force behind medical research, with a profound influence

on

the research that's chosen. For example, if a drug that has the

potential to be patented is competing for funding with a drug that

can't

be patented because it's found in nature, there's no contest. The

patent

drug wins, even if the drug found in nature might be the biggest

breakthrough since penicillin.

 

You don't hear much that's positive about non-drug alternative

health

treatments in the national media, yet millions of people visit the

Internet daily looking for information on alternative health. Would

they

be flocking to the Web in such large numbers if they were getting

what

they need from their doctors, or from print media and TV? We think

not.

Drug company money is a primary source of advertising revenue for

the

media, especially for TV and magazines, so unless you're Bill Moyers

you're unlikely to expose drug company and medical politics or talk

about alternative health in positive terms and keep your job.

 

How about the FDA—aren't they looking out for the consumer? On the

contrary, endorsement of a drug or treatment by the FDA should not

necessarily give you confidence that it's a safe and effective

treatment. According to the prestigious Journal of the American

Medical

Association and New England Journal of Medicine, deaths from the

side

effects of properly prescribed prescription drugs are the fourth-or

fifth-leading cause of death in the United States. This doesn't even

include deaths from improperly prescribed drugs, deaths from in-

hospital

errors, and unreported drug deaths; if these were thrown into the

statistics, drug treatments in general would easily be in the top

three

causes of death in the nation. All the drugs that are killing so

many

people are approved by the FDA and considered part of the standard

of

medical care.

 

A recent scathing editorial in the Lancet took the FDA to task for

its

inappropriately close association with pharmaceutical companies. The

title of the article was " Lotronex and the FDA: a Fatal Erosion of

Integrity, " and it described the process by which the drug Lotronex,

developed for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), was approved by the

FDA

after inadequate testing, killed five people, was withdrawn, and

then as

put back on the FDA table for reinstatement. The Lancet editorial

concluded that, " ...private communications appear to have subverted

official procedures, while suppressed scientific debate has

superseded a

full and open review process.... The Lotronex episode may show in

microcosm a serious erosion of integrity within the FDA, and in

particular CDER [Center for Drug Evaluation and Research], whose

operating budget now depends on industry money. " Buyer beware.

 

The original intent of the FDA was to protect consumers from

dangerous

products, but the agency appears to have lost its way, and to be

heavily

influenced in its decisions by the drug industry. A recent survey

conducted by the newspaper USA Today found that 54 percent of the

time,

experts hired to advise the FDA on which medicines should be

approved

for sale have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic

they're

asked to evaluate. In turn, it's very common for FDA employees to

retire

to well-paid positions on the advisory boards of large drug

companies.

 

So what's a woman to believe? You need to find medical authorities

whose

opinions you trust: people who have been successful in their

practice

and proven right in their viewpoints over and over again for

decades.

People whose opinions are not based on how large a grant they're

getting

from the drug industry, or the soy industry, or the dairy industry,

or a

vitamin company, but people who are objectively and intelligently

looking at the facts, interpreting experience, and evaluating

studies.

Put your trust in a physician who's willing to take the time to talk

with you; after all, this is a life-and death matter.

 

How about doctors who would like to try treatments for cancer that

are

outside the mainstream? They can't: They're forced to use

medications

(even if they know they aren't working well), because there are no

large-scale studies to prove the effectiveness of alternatives and

thus

the FDA will not approve them. (The evidence proving the

effectiveness

of conventional medical treatments is scant, but that's politics.)

If an

alternative treatment doesn't have FDA approval, a doctor can be

fined,

be reprimanded, or even lose his or her medical license for using

it. If

you find the rare and courageous physician willing to guide and

support

you through an alternative treatment, be grateful!

 

The Implications of Being Honest

 

The political and financial implications of admitting that

conventional

hormone replacement therapy, plastics, pesticides, and other

environmental toxins disrupt the body's ability to manufacture

normal

levels of hormones and consequently contribute to causing breast

cancer

are enormous. (We'll explain how and why these things can cause

breast

cancer later in the book.) Just think what would happen to the drug

company giants if they were forced to admit that their products had

contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of women? The tobacco

companies would have to move over in the litigation courts. However,

the

largest drug companies alone (never mind the pesticide and plastics

companies) spent $74.4 million in 1997-1998 to influence

congressional

thinking via their lobbying efforts. That's one powerful influence.

The

only potentially stronger influence is your vote.

 

Thanks to an undeniably steep rise in the incidence of prostate and

testicular cancer, Congress has taken some action to find out more

about

how chemicals that mimic hormones affect humans. A 1996 mandate from

Congress charged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with

examining the hormonal effects of the top 100 selling chemicals in

the

United States. As the first studies trickle out, the evidence is

clear:

We are awash in a sea of chemicals, many of them estrogenic in

nature,

that profoundly affect every aspect of our health. Because estrogens

oppose or negate the actions of testosterone, our little boys—and

eventually men—are as profoundly affected as women are.

 

As it becomes clear to our political representatives that these

chemicals are affecting their own families, perhaps they'll be

inspired

to take action to protect their constituents. It's also incumbent

upon

each individual to maintain a lifestyle that's protective—this alone

would dramatically change the economics, because millions of people

would stop spraying their homes, lawns, and gardens with pesticides;

start buying organic produce; and stop eating hormone-laden meat.

(Did

you know that U.S. beef is banned in Europe because of the hormones

it

contains?)

 

The Bottom Line

 

The bottom line is that a woman with breast cancer is left with few

viable options from the medical community. She can't completely

trust

breast cancer research or recommendations about medical treatments,

and

she lives in a culture that's averting its gaze from the real causes

of

her disease. Thus, it takes enormous courage and fortitude to stand

up

and take charge of your health, to question your physician and ask

for

clear answers, and to carefully examine alternatives. We hope that

through this book we can inspire you to do just that.

 

Perhaps this excerpt from a letter to Dr. Lee will be inspiring:

 

My deepest appreciation to you for being gutsy enough to tell me

your

opinion concerning tamoxifen. You advised me against it, giving me

the

courage to buck my very pushy oncologist who wanted me to take it. I

have been thriving without tamoxifen. I've had several follow-up

mammograms and was told the opposite breast looked " textbook

perfect, "

and the breast that had the lumpectomy looked normal and benign.

 

I am 56, postmenopausal, and am using progesterone cream. You

reassured

me it was safe even for a woman like me with high estrogen and

progesterone receptors, explaining this means progesterone can get

in

and do its job of stopping the cancer when the receptors are

present.

 

When I heard the flap about the " hazards of progesterone " I knew

before

even checking further that it was probably a botched reporting job

that

really referred to the synthetic progestins.

 

Thanks to you my life has been quite serene despite my diagnosis of

cancer. I think progesterone is a mood elevator, also. I have

blessed

you silently many times since you replied to my letter asking about

tamoxifen.

 

Blessings on you and your work,

MH

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

DietaryTi-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Genes