Breast Cancer- When Chemotherapy Becomes A Useless And Dangerous Poisonous Cure

An article in a well known German magazine, Der Spiegel (4 October 2004) featured an article with this title: The Useless Poisonous Cures. It says: "Increasingly sophisticated and expensive cellular poisons are being given to seriously ill patients ... patients do not actually live a day longer." At first impression I thought the article was rather rash on the so called "noble" effort of the Vested Interest to find a cure for cancer. My perception has since changed after much reading - I begin to question if the effort is really noble or something else - a deception done in the name of science?

It is well known that breast cancer is a common, much feared disease among women worldwide. In the US alone, it is said that each year 180,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 44,000 will die of it. This works out to be almost 25% death due to breast cancer after diagnosis. Why must 25% of them die? What happen to all the research that are being done and the hype that a cure is around the corner?

In Malaysia and also elsewhere, women with breast cancer undergoes a standard recipe of treatments -- surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormonal oral drug. I was shocked to be told by a bank executive that the oncologist offered her a $50,000 state-of-the-art-package-deal to cure her breast cancer after finding a lump in her breast. This offer was made even before a surgery was done.

The chemotherapy regimes commonly used for breast cancer are anthracycline-based. Perhaps breast cancer patients are more familiar with these names: AC (Andriamycin + cyclophosphamide), CAF (cyclophosphamide + Adriamycin + 5-FU), CEF (cyclophosphamide + epirubicin + 5-FU). Patients receiving such regimen are told that this is the state-of-the-art treatment. It is scientifically proven. The effectiveness of such a treatment has undergone peer review and is published in peer-reviewed journal. The treatment can prevent further spread of the cancer and patients can be cured.

Naïve patients accept their doctors' words with good faith. In countries where medical treatments are not paid by the government, patients have to find their own money to pay for the medical expenses. Some patients have to sell their house, land or jewellery to finance their hunt for a cure.

It is most shocking to learn that at a closed session of a select group of people during the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting held in Chicago (2007), Dr. Dennis Slamon, chief of Oncology at the University of California at Los Angeles, revealed that his research had indicated that anthracycline chemo-drugs such as Andriamycin, provide no benefit whatever to about 92% of breast cancer patients. Dr. Slamon's research has shown that the most widely used chemo-drug may not benefit most women. To find no benefit is one thing but pay for and receive a drug that causes severe toxicities is another thing. These anthracyclines are notoriously dangerous because they are known to cause damage to the heart or may even cause secondary cancer like leukemia.

The National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) - a grass roots advocacy group in the US released this statement (May 2007) in its website: "NBCC urges the oncology community to reassess the use of anthracycline-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer."

The Coalition urged that it "may very well be the time to do away with anthracycline drugs". Such drugs only benefit a very small percentage -- only 8% -- of breast patients whose breast cancer co-amplify the Her2 and TopoII genes. This point is worth repeating: only patients tested positive for Her2 and TopoII benefit from anthracycline-base chemotherapy.

Is the medical community willing to change its ways of treating breast cancer in the light of this research evidence? The NBCC said: "while the medical oncology community is quick to embrace additional treatments, it is extremely cautions toward change in the other direction even when the evidence warrants it. Meanwhile, women with breast cancer are subject to complex regimens of toxic and expensive treatments that they simply may not need."

Comment

The jury is out. The choice is clear. Women have a choice. Make that choice wisely. Learn for yourself if the chemotherapy that is offered to you is going to benefit you or it is just an expensive, useless and dangerous poisonous cure that you do not need.

Recommend : Making Easy Money Online On The Internet

Can You Be Cancer Free For Life And Drink Alcohol?

Are you at risk?

Cancer kills an estimated 526,000 Americans yearly, second only to heart disease. The most common cancers in the United States are cancer of the lung, large bowel, and breast. Rothman, K.J. in Preventive Medicine 9(2):174-179, 1980, found that there is now considerable evidence to suggest a connection between heavy alcohol consumption and increased risk for cancer, with an estimated 2 to 4 % of all cancer cases thought to be caused either directly or indirectly by alcohol.

There is also a strong connection between alcohol use and cancers of the esophagus, pharynx, and mouth, whereas a more controversial association links alcohol with liver, breast, and colorectal cancers. The American Cancer Society found that together, these cancers kill more than 125,000 people annually in the United States.

Alcohol Will NOT Allow You To Be Cancer Free For Life

Research shows a link between the level of alcohol consumption and certain types of cancer. As alcohol consumption increases, so does risk of developing certain cancers, such as cancers of the upper digestive tract, the esophagus, the mouth, the pharynx, and the larynx. Other data link alcohol consumption and cancers of the liver, breast, and colon.

An estimated 75 % of esophageal cancers in the United States are attributable to chronic, excessive alcohol consumption.

Nearly 50 % of cancers of the mouth, pharynx, and larynx are associated with heavy drinking. People who drink large quantities of alcohol over time have an increased risk of these cancers as compared with abstainers. If they drink and smoke, the increase in risk is even more dramatic.

Liver. Prolonged, heavy drinking has been associated in many cases with primary liver cancer. However, it is liver cirrhosis, whether caused by alcohol or another factor, that is thought to induce the cancer. In the United States, liver cancer is relatively uncommon, afflicting approximately 2 people per 100,000, but excessive alcohol consumption is linked to as many as 36 percent of these cases. Alcohol CANNOT promote a cancer free for life.

Mechanisms of Alcohol-Related Cancers

Preliminary studies show that alcohol may affect cancer development at the genetic level by initiating and promoting cancer. Acetaldehyde, a product of alcohol metabolism, impairs a cell's natural ability to repair its DNA, resulting in a greater likelihood that mutations causing cancer will occur.

Alcohol assists in the development of cancer

Alcohol may act as a co-carcinogen by enhancing the cancer-provoking effects of other chemicals. The risk for mouth, tracheal, and esophageal cancer is 35 times greater for people who both smoke and drink than for people who neither smoke nor drink, implying a co-carcinogenic interaction between alcohol and tobacco-related carcinogens.

Alcohol's cancer producing effect may be explained by its interaction with enzymes that normally help to detoxify substances that enter the body. Carcinogens such as those from tobacco and diet can become more potent as they pass through the esophagus, lungs, intestines, and liver and encounter the activated enzyme.

Nutrition. Chronic alcohol abuse may result in abnormalities in the way the body processes nutrients and promote certain types of cancer. Reduced levels of iron, zinc, vitamin E, and some of the B vitamins, common in heavy drinkers, have been experimentally associated with some cancers. Also, levels of vitamin A, hypothesized to have anticancer properties, are severely depressed in the liver and esophagus during chronic alcohol consumption. For a cancer free life, just watching your diet will not reduce your chances of developing cancer in your body.

A recent study indicates that as few as two drinks per day can suppress any beneficial effects of a "correct" diet on decreasing risk of colon cancer. Although the study suggests that a diet high in folic acid, a B vitamin found in fresh fruits and vegetables, decreases the risk for colon cancer, it also warns that alcohol consumption may counter this protective action and increase the risk for colon cancer by reducing folic acid levels.

Suppression of immune response

Alcoholism has been associated with suppression of the immune system. Immune suppression makes chronic alcohol users more susceptible to various infectious diseases, and to cancer. For your best chances to remain cancer free for life, you would be best to reduce your alcohol consumption to a minimum. This means a maximum of two alcoholic beverages NO MORE than 3 times a week.

by Dr Laurence Magne, publisher of Alternative Health Ebooks and Author of Cancer Free for Life

Visit : Making Easy Money Online On The Internet

Breast Cancer Survival Rate - Stage 4 Breast Cancer

The breast cancer survival rate for Stage 4 breast cancer is much lower than for breast cancer detected at earlier stages.

Stage 4 breast cancer, or advanced breast cancer, has metastasized to other tissue including bone tissue, lung tissue, or the liver. When breast cancer has overwhelmed the body's natural defenses and spread this far by the time the cancer is first diagnosed, the 5-year survival rate drops to 16%-20% in the United States (American Cancer Society).

Up to 5% of white women in the U.S., and up to 9% of black women have advanced breast cancer spread to distant tissue at the time of first diagnosis (SEER). This difference is usually attributed to poverty and lack of health insurance.

In general, women who have advanced breast cancer at the time of diagnosis live approximately 18 months after diagnosis (median survival rate). Those who are still alive five years after their diagnosis of advanced breast cancer can live an additional 3.5 years (median survival rate) according to the American Cancer Society.

Since this is the most deadly category of breast cancer, it is important to work closely with all the health care providers. New treatments are being developed all the time, and second, or even third opinions may give the patient more information about newly discovered successful solutions.

Early detection is clearly the most important factor in breast cancer survival rates. Breast cancer detected at Stage 1 while it is still localized to the breast has a survival rate of 98%-100%, while metastasized breast cancer first detected at Stage 4 drops down to 16%-20%.

Early detection procedures must include monthly self-examinations done at the same time each month. From age 20-40, healthy women should have clinical breast exams performed by their health care providers every three years. After age 40, the breast exams should be annually and should include a mammogram or similar procedure.

North American white women have the highest rates of breast cancer in the world, but the 5-year survival rate for all stages (Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3, and Stage 4) combined is 88% for the U.S. A recent study found European countries have lower 5-year breast cancer survival rates, with England at 77.8% and Ireland at 76.2% (Lancet Oncology).

The difference in these survival rates is usually attributed to life-saving early detection.

Visit : Making Easy Money Online On The Internet