Breast cancer in women (mamma carcinoma)
- The allopathic definition:
Breast cancer is a disease of the female mammary gland.
- How frequently does this type of cancer occur (incidence rate) in Germany (USA appr. x 3)?
The current incident rate is 75 per 100,000 women.
The majority of the tumors originate in the ductal (milk duct) epithelial and the remainder from the lobuli.
TX: Primary tumor cannot be assessed
T0: No evidence of primary tumor
Tis: Intraductal carcinoma, lobular carcinoma in situ, or Paget’s disease of the nipple with no associated invasion of normal breast tissue
Tis (DCIS): Ductal carcinoma in situ
Tis (LCIS): Lobular carcinoma in situ
Tis (Paget’s): Paget’s disease of the nipple with no tumor. Paget’s disease associated with a tumor is classified according to the size of the tumor.
T1: Tumor =2.0 cm in greatest dimension
T1mic: Microinvasion =0.1 cm in greatest dimension
T1a: Tumor >0.1 cm but =0.5 cm in greatest dimension
T1b: Tumor >0.5 cm but =1.0 cm in greatest dimension
T1c: Tumor >1.0 cm but =2.0 cm in greatest dimension
T2: Tumor >2.0 cm but =5.0 cm in greatest dimension
T3: Tumor >5.0 cm in greatest dimension
T4: Tumor of any size with direct extension to (a) chest wall or (b) skin, only as described below
T4a: Extension to chest wall, not including pectoralis muscle
T4b: Edema (including peau d’orange) or ulceration of the skin of the breast, or satellite skin nodules confined to the same breast
T4c: Both T4a and T4b
T4d: Inflammatory carcinoma
- How is this type of cancer diagnosed by allopathic practitioners?
Palpation of the breast, scanning processes like CT, mammography, ultra-sound etc. Definitive determination of the malignancy through pathology after previous biopsy.
What are the allopathic therapy concepts?
Is employed in all stages and is always the first allopathic therapy. Here there is a distinction between breast-saving operations and radical operations (mastectomies).
Comments: There are several studies, which show that radical operations do not provide any advantage for survival (e.g. L94; 334:1496-7). Even the removal of lymph nodes can result in unnecessary long-term damages. In the meantime there is the allopathic possibility of dying the so-called “first lymph node” and thus avoiding unnecessary removal of the lymph nodes.
Usually the approach involving CMF (cyclophosphamide/ methotrexate /fluorouracil) or similar combinations (CAF/VAC) is used. More and more physicians are also using taxol, taxotere, etoposide, idarubicin and even gemcitabine. Chemotherapy is also used more and more frequently prior to an operation, in order to reduce the size of the tumor.
Studies by Henderson and Canello, by Schwartsmann and Pinedo, or by Plosker and Faulds prove that chemotherapies like doxorubicin or epirubicin in high doses can achieve response rates up to 70%. Unfortunately this has no effect whatsoever on your survival time, as the major studies demonstrate (Antman 1992, Walters 1991, Marschner 1994, Becher 1990, Focan 1990, etc.). These numbers are very significant, as they prove that destruction of tumors, or reduction of tumors really has no effect, and that it is much more important to fight the causes and not the tumor.
- For you it is very important to know that to this date there are no sure tests that indicate that you will live significantly longer through any combination or single application of chemotherapy medication. Combinations do not produce survival times that are any longer (Baker 1974).
- Even the NCI (National Cancer Institute) in America published that before the adjuvant chemotherapy was implemented throughout the country starting in the mid 80’s, 91% of all women with localized breast cancer lived for more than 4-years, regardless of age (NCI/Bethesda 1994). This means nothing more than that the survival rate has declined since the introduction of the various chemo combinations.
- High-dose chemotherapy plus bone marrow transplant.
If this therapy is suggested in your case then you should certainly first read the studies that demonstrate that this therapy has never left the experimental stages, due to the poor results (Lancet 1998, Rodenhuis, Eichel). As of this writing nobody has discussed how many women had to die through this therapy.
- In October 2004 an article from Jörg Blech that appeared in the German news magazine Spiegel (again) shocked the oncology world, relative to breast cancer. The article published the latest data from Professor Dieter Hölzel from the Großhadern Clinic in Munich. Professor Hoelzel and his team have collected data on several thousand cancer patients since 1978, and in the process they found out something astounding (for lay people). Thus the survival time for women with metastasized breast cancer in the period from 1978 – 1986 was precisely 24 months. In the period from 1987 – 1993 it was 23 months and in the period from 1994 – 2002 it was only 22 months. This fact alone was and is shocking. If, in this regard, we also consider that the sales figures for chemotherapies increased from 5.93 billion USD to 16.11 billion USD, just in the 1996 – 2004 period alone, then we would must finally dismiss the whole pack of lies associated with the “new and better chemotherapies”.
Since the 1970’s women with breast cancer have been persuaded (or should I say forced?) to undergo chemotherapies and radiation with all types of lies. Some studies are cited, numbers are juggled, and finally the simple outcome is, that if you follow the counsel of your expert in white, you must die sooner. But not just that, this counsel costs billions of Euros, women go through the anxiety of a chemotherapy, and in many cases it has even cost women their lives, because they died directly or indirectly as a result of the chemotherapy.
Now I am enough of a realist to know that even this article in Spiegel magazine will not change anything. Insurance companies will continue to pay for almost any chemotherapy, governments will continue to approve almost any chemotherapy, and patients will continue to allow chemotherapy to be prescribed for them. I cannot prevent all of this. But I can ask you, dear reader, to you thoughtfully consider what you have read. Or in other words: Ask yourself the question; “Do I need any more evidence in order to understand that chemotherapy for breast cancer cannot contribute to my living any significantly longer, but rather it can possibly contribute to earlier death!
Although to this date there are no hard facts confirming that irradiation contributes to women living significantly longer, this therapy is still considered part of the standard program. The recommendations are usually that the entire breast should be irradiated with 50-60 Gy. Here in turn you must know why this is the case, because interestingly enough even leading oncologists say that the survival time is not significantly increased through this measure. This is why the studies usually refer to prevention of local recurrence of up to 40%”, similar to the studies of chemotherapies.
In English this means that indeed tumors do not occur as often, however this fact does not mean that you will live a single day longer. Here again the assumptions are based on the micrometastases theory. A prospective randomized therapy from Dr. Wilhelm Friedl (Surgical Clinic Heidelberg University) for breast cancer showed that after 10 years, approximately 37% of the women were still living, regardless of whether they had undergone irradiation or not (MT, No. 6/82). The study by Dr. B. Fisher/ USA involving 2,000 women over a 9-year period showed no difference (NEJM 89; 320: 822).
Dr. Ian MacKenzie’s study proved that for the 781 women he examined, the chance of getting breast cancer was 24.5 times (!) higher for women who had had irradiation, than it was for non-irradiated patients (1/510 und 13/271).
Additional therapies like hormones, antibodies, etc.
In Germany primarily Herceptin (trastuzumab) is used. This is due to an American study. In this study one group was given chemotherapy and the other group was given chemotherapy and herceptin. After one year 67% of the chemo group were still living, and 78% of the other group were still alive. This study, which lasted precisely one year, and even though its differences can be explained by statistics alone, was enough to market Herceptin as the “new wonder drug” against breast cancer. In June of 2000 the manufacturer Genentech had to send a letter to all physicians warning of serious side effects, because 15 women died due to the therapy (within 24 hours of the infusion). The utmost caution is urged, particularly for patients with lung and heart diseases.
If your estrogen or progesterone receptors react positively then usually a hormonal therapy is prescribed, such as tamoxifen. The idea behind all anti-estrogen medications is to suppress estradiol-specific cell metabolism stimulation. In theory this leads to stimulation of growth-inhibiting factors (TGF-ß) and it is supposed to inhibit growth promoting factors (FGF alpha and IGF).
To this day tamoxifen is a very controversial medication. On one hand there are “official studies”, which are supposed to prove the effectiveness of this medication, on the other hand do not forget that the leader of the major tamoxifen study, Dr. Fisher had to rescind his study because he falsified important data (including the fact that there were 4 fatalities through tamoxifen, and that cervical cancer occurred more frequently). The most recent data from 2000 confirm the danger of tamoxifen. In Holland, 309 women who had developed cervical cancer after breast cancer illness were examined. These women were compared with 860 women who “only” developed breast cancer, and the result was that women who had been taking tamoxifen for a maximum of two years had a 50% greater risk. Women who had taken tamoxifen for two to five-years had a 100% greater risk of developing cervical cancer, and women who had taken tamoxifen for more than five years had a 690% greater risk of developing cervical cancer (Lancet 2000, 356). Moreover the cervical cancer was more difficult to treat for these women, than it was for the women who had never taken tamoxifen.
The national cancer Institute in the USA and the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center also reported that tamoxifen can induce mutations at the p53 gene, which naturally can be quite disadvantageous for cancer patients.
There is an another problem which also has not be investigated adequately. It is known that tamoxifen docks on receptors. However because tamoxifen does not fit into the receptors 100%, the receptor changes slightly. However this could result in the receptors becoming immune to their own hormones. This phenomenon has been observed for a long time in other medications. An alternative in this case could be perhaps Indole-3 Carbinol (see chapter: supporting substances). Professor Dr. Julius Hackethal has been pursuing an independent way of hormone blockade since 1985, by daily injecting buserelin (profact) a so-called hormone blocker (GnRh), in high doses (20-40x higher than recommended). Usually Buserelin was given for 6-24 weeks and thereafter for 3-6 months with pauses.
The 2001 and 2003 data, published in the WHI study, as well as the data provided by Dr. Chlebowski, Dr. Gann, and Dr Morrow, clearly demonstrate that women who have been taking hormones (estrogen and progesterone) for several years, develop breast cancer significantly more frequently, and that this cancer is even more advanced when it is detected. This is due primarily to the higher radiation resistance of the breast tissue of the women. In addition there is also the aggravation that mammograms often have a noticeable appearance and consequently lead to incorrect diagnoses. For decades doctors have warned of the dangers of the birth-control pill and against taking hormones in the menopausal years. The present recommendation can only still be: Stay away from hormones!
In women after menopause estrogens are primarily produced in increased amounts in fat cells. Aromatase inhibitors can prevent this production, and consequently are often prescribed for older women. Aminoglutehemide, along with anastrozole and letrozole (Arimidex/Femara) belong to a new generation of aromatase blockers.
In the 2002 ATAC study involving 9366 women, (Arimidex, Tamoxifen alone or in combination were compared – again only toxins were compared), it was shown that Arimidex had significantly fewer side effects than did tamoxifen, however no significant advantages were shown relative to survival time. Personally I consider this international, much-discussed, study to be a joke, since the study was executed and evaluated by the manufacturer of both medications, AstraZeneca. I wonder if all the doctors who prescribe this medication or that medication on the basis of such a study, know who is behind the study?
With breast cancer there is a risk, which unfortunately is not mentioned in the media for various reasons. It is discussed in the study by the anthropologists Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer. Both investigated a total of 4,700 women and they found that the chance of getting breast cancer is 125 times greater for women who wear a brassiere 24 hours a day, than it is for women who do not wear a brassiere. At 12 hours a day the chance is still 21 times greater. The reason for this is not known. Probably the fact that brassieres permanently block lymphatic vessels plays a significant role. Also the changes of the magnetic field through the mostly artificial fibers of the brassier could be responsible for this. Today we still do not know why brassieres have such negative effects, but after this study every woman should reconsider whether she wants to wear a brassiere in the future, or what kind she would like to wear.
There is something else that I have noticed in this regard. Japan has the lowest incidence of breast cancer in the world, and upbringing, nutrition, and many other influences are discussed internationally in an effort to determine why this is so. However the fact is that Japanese women wear fewer brassieres due to smaller breast size, this is at least one reason of perhaps many, but it could also be the main reason for the lower incidence of breast cancer in Japan.