Select Page

Diagnosis

When is cancer actually cancer?

For many years we have been told that we can get a better handle on the “problem of cancer” thanks to new preventative examinations. But the only thing that one can get a better handle on are the significantly increased revenues for the industry that manufactures the X-ray devices, PAP tests, etc. An additional advantage for the industry is that the statistics look better. Since the introduction of mammography women with breast cancer survive much longer. The truth however is that the numbers naturally look better, because the tumor is detect-ed earlier, and as a consequence logically there are more women that still live 5 years after detection of the tumor. In reality in spite of millions of tax dollars, not a single woman’s life is saved. Quite the contrary. The high rate of wrong diagnoses contributes to the fact that women in particular are unnecessarily mutilated.

In British Columbia/Canada, in a state where a PAP smear test is made for all women, the death rate from cervical cancer is just as high as it is in all the other states. In 1988, another study showed that within 2 years almost 50% of all abnormal smears regressed to normal status. In the British Journal of Cancer Research the authors presented a study showing that up to 60% of the results were wrong. It really became embarrassing in 1987, when in England 45,000 smears were reanalyzed and it was determined that the diagnosis was wrong in 911 of them.

Please consider that serious measures, including total operations and chemotherapies are initiated based on such a test; measures which then cause cancer where previously there were healthy cells. The situation with mammography is similar. In 1994, even the National Cancer Institute in the USA retracted its previous recommendation that women under 50 years of age should have a mammogram. Really the truth is that the National Cancer Institute had to do this, although its financial sponsors were certainly not happy, because various studies demonstrated the negative effects. If you do not find this convincing then you should read the article in the British Medical Journal in 1994 by Susan Ott, in which she reports how Swedish researchers observed more than 350 women, for whom a mammogram lead to an incorrect diagnosis. She reported that these women had to subject themselves to 1,112 doctor visits, 397 biopsies!, and 187 additional mammograms, just to finally be told that they were never sick. It becomes really unpleasant when you know that in 1994 the Canadian government determined in examining 50,000 women from 40-49 years of age, that in the group that received mammograms, 33% more women died than died in the compare group. Indeed more tumors were detected in the mammography group, however this did not turn out to be positive for the women in question, as the result clearly shows. In passing I would also like to mention that in the meantime this result has been confirmed by additional studies in Sweden and in the USA.

Doesn’t everyone know that X-rays generate cancer? Is it not logical to assume that when sensitive tissue, such as the female breast is pressed with great pressure between two plates, that this can lead to minimal injuries? Doesn’t every doctor know by now that through mammograms cancer cells possibly present in other tissue parts are pressed, and that this precisely causes what one wants to prevent? J.P. van Netten from the Royal Jubilee Hospital in London demonstrated this fact in a 1994 study, when he was able to prove that incidence of so-called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS: ductuales carcinoma in situ, in English: breast cancer in a very early stage in the milk duct) increased by 200% through the mammograms.

Many women still believe that preventative appointments are important. Regardless of whether you are one of these that so believe, this preventative care also creates fears, which as we know today, can generate cancer. Let me be more precise in listing the benefit of preventative treatment using the example of mammography. First there is the question of starting when and how often. This is evaluated very differently, and even reviewing the best statistics there are no advantages for women under 50 and over 70 years of age.

In the evaluation of the data it is happily “forgotten” that women who participate in the early detection measures, usu-ally come from the higher social classes and for this reason have a higher life expectancy. In addition, women are not told that slow-growing tumors are more easily discovered than are fast-growing tumors, as these naturally remain longer in a stage in which they can be discovered. These tumors naturally also have a better prognosis even without early detection.

The advantage of mammography is often demonstrated with studies, which prove that women apparently have lived longer, if they were permanently examined. Let us take a closer look at this. One of these positive studies is by Dr. Nyström. In this study over a 10-year period 4 women out of 1000, who were not examined died. In the group of women who had mammograms, 3 out of 1000 died. Expressed in other words, 996 women were subjected to radioactive rays, so that one could survive. To a marketing manager for mammography devices these numbers have a totally different meaning. He would write: “Through mammograms 25% fewer women die (3 instead of 4)”. Be careful reading statistics.

If we look at all the numbers of the study then we notice that of 100,000 non-examined women, 89,550 survived, and of the examined women 89,020 survived. To be mean we could say that in the group of women who were examined, 520 more died. To be fair one must say however, that these numbers are statistically insignificant and one can assume that in both groups the same number die whether they are preexamined or not.

But your doctor will not tell you about another examination of 26,057 women (Kerlikowske). In total 25,858 women did not have breast cancer, but the mammography was negative in only 24,187 cases. This means that 1,671! women were told that they probably had cancer and even if many were not told, then I am sure that almost all of them thought so, or at least had to deal with strong fears. Interestingly the mammogram was also negative for 20 of 199 women although they did have breast cancer.

If we add the 179 women for whom it was later deter-mined that they had breast cancer, then we get the number of 1850 women with a tumor finding. In total, however only 199 women had breast cancer, or in other words, only 1 in 10 women with a pathological finding really had breast cancer. The number of incorrect findings is alarmingly high for women under 50.

Have you ever read in a newspaper about the enormous damage that not only women have through these examinations? Or how often have you read about what women had to deal with due to an incorrect mammogram report? How many women would die with their tumor (and not because of their tumor) without ever having any greater problems (similar to prostate cancer), and who actually discusses the issue that for many women it is a major problem having to live the last years of their lives with the knowledge of having cancer, with all the associated bodily and psychological problems.

DCIS is another term that plays a major role in breast cancer. This is what is often discovered in mammograms. Even allopathic practitioners (see Silverstein, Brit. Med. J. 317: 1998, 734–739 in this regard) estimate today that only half of the DCIS develop into invasive breast cancer after 10-20 years. Even a lay person can understand now why the 5 year statistics for breast cancer look so good. Another problem associated with mammography is also happily kept quiet: The radiation stress through the examination. Discussion usually concerns the most modern devices and the fact that radiation exposure is less than that experienced on vacation in the mountains. However no one mentions that Dr. Mettler in 1996 published that one woman in 10,000 will die through the radiation stress. According to estimates by Jung (1998), the additional risk of getting breast cancer through regular mammography is between 0.015% to 0.045% – in other words this means 1.5-4-5 women per 10,000. In other words this means for you: if you are one of the 0.015% , then your risk of getting cancer through a mammogram is precisely 100%.

Nor is the following mentioned: Although my wife would never have a mammogram, my wife and I pay for this expensive examination every month with my insurance premiums. In 1995, the well-known Rand Corporation calculated that between 166,000 Euro and 1,480,000 Euro must be spent to discover a single incidence of breast cancer illness. Let’s be honest how long do we really want to pay for all this non-sense?

And men?

Men as well are not protected from unauthorized attacks. A study published in 1994 in the British Medical Journal proved that PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) test, preferred above all others, is not nearly as precise as is always and everywhere maintained. In this study 336 men developed prostate cancer with a normal PSA value, while only 47% of the men who already had prostate cancer showed a higher value. OK let’s be honest, how do you feel when you learn that every 2nd PSA test in this study was wrong.

We should also look at prostate cancer from a different perspective. In 1995, the American Cancer Society described in their prostate cancer information that cancer cells were found in the prostate of 15% of all men examined. This number increased to 40% in 70 year olds and to 50% for 80-year olds. First we should consider how active these cancer cells really are, and the PSA test certainly does not tell us this. P.J. Scerret impressively describes in his work, “Screening for Prostate Cancer”, that only 1% of these cancer cells form into a cancer tumor, and just 0.3% of these prostate tumors cause the death of the individual. And if this is not enough for you, then you really must read the books by Professor Julius Hackethal, who has confirmed all this data in his research.

The earlier the tumor is detected the better?

We are always told that the sooner the tumor is detected the better. The truth however is that the earlier the tumor is detect-ed the sooner the women died. Naturally this does not have anything to do with early detection – that is always an advantage – but rather this is due to: The earlier the tumor is detect-ed in women (and men), the greater the chance, that a therapy will be prescribed for them, through which they will die earlier. To be fair it must also be stated here that perhaps it is not the therapy, but rather also the knowledge of the disease. You have certainly heard the words “self-fulfilling prophecy” at some time or other. There is nothing more behind this than the famous placebo effect, which means that what we firmly believe always happens. As in the proverb: “Our faith moves mountains”.

Just ask patients to list the words they associate with the word cancer. You will certainly hear words like: Death, pain, God, purpose of life, why…! Unfortunately these words plunge most people into a maelstrom, which leads to the illness and not to health. Of all people, doctors should know what the placebo effect can trigger; but when cancer is involved they are so careless with the diagnosis, that we would have to assume the words oncology and psychology should never be mentioned in the same room. Also the statements of Dr. Hamer (see under New Medicine) and many other therapists naturally fit into this category.

When do I have cancer?

The diagnosis of cancer is primarily associated with pathogens. Now you certainly assume that there is an absolutely fail safe structure that Doctors use to determine when a person has cancer and when not. Unfortunately I must disappoint you here as well. In 1992 a study in England deter-mined that in some parts of the country, 20% of all tests for cervical cancer and breast cancer were positive, and in other parts of the country only 3% were positive.

In 1987 in Liverpool 45,000 tests were re-analyzed and a wrong diagnosis was determined in 911 of these cases. In 1988, in Manchester it was 3,000 tests of which 60 were incorrect. At Yale University 10 experienced radiologists were given 150 good-quality mammograms for their analysis. In all of 50 cases the doctors were not unified. This needs serious consideration. One out of every 3 mammograms was not read in the same way by experienced radiologists. I certainly do not need to tell you in detail what this means.

These studies show once again how unscientifically things are done in the medical field. Another point is that pathologists do not commit themselves gladly. In the reports we read: “It is most likely in agreement with disease pattern XY”, or “most likely it is a…, differential diagnostically it could also be a…”. After you have read hundreds of pathology reports then you could write a book about “probably, most likely, perhaps, cannot be precisely determined, etc. Funny enough, the probabilities in almost all cases are taken at 100% by the doc-tors, there is no other way to explain the fact, that that which still appears somewhat uncertain in the pathology report is always described as 100% certain in the discharge summary.

Also, today the standards of the pathology text books are evaluated as certain, without anybody questioning the whole procedure. One example. Certain cells are viewed by pathologists as cancer cells with 100% certainty. Now however there are people who neither die with this diagnosis, even without therapy, nor does their tumor continue to grow.

An additional example is provided by the Basel Bone tumor Reference Center, where more than 9,000 bone tumor cases have been diagnosed. Of this number more than 5,000 cases were sent in for a second expert opinion. And now please read carefully: The diagnosis had to be changed in 2,289 cases out of the app. 5,500 cases sent in for a second opinion. In other words – almost every second diagnosis was incorrect with reference to the type of cancer, and in 492 cases the diagnosis was even 100% incorrect (the patients did not even have cancer). All previous diagnosis were sent in by “specialists in their field”, professors, leaders of pathological institutes etc.

In this example we must not lose sight of the fact that the diagnoses involved are very serious indeed. Particularly with bone tumors the decision often involves “removing” entire members. By the way, in 236 cases this was the case, e.g. for 236 people, many of them young people, cancer was diagnosed where there was no cancer. Expressed statistically this means, that for at least every 20th patient a catastrophic therapy would have been initiated, if a doctor or the patient had not insisted that the first pathology report be rechecked. Now if we assume that this only occurs rarely, then you can imagine the kind of things that are going on today. And please do not forget: Every pathologist had maintained before the second examination that his diagnosis was correct.

Because I am quite aware of the “sensitivity” of this issue, I want to be very clear that pathologists in many cases most likely “are right”, when one considers cancer from their point of view. Unfortunately many roads lead to Rome, and to be honest Mr. Pathologist, would you recommend an immediate mastectomy (removal of the breast) for your wife after the diagnosis of breast cancer? I do not want to go into more detail in this book about the problems associated with pathologists. For you as patient it simply means nothing more (but nothing less) than that you must absolutely ensure that the diagnosis is confirmed by additional examinations before you make more serious decisions.

The 1% hurdle

Doctors like to argue that tests are incorrect in 1% of all cases, maximum. At first this sounds good. Unfortunately many people understand very little of the mathematics involved, other-wise they would know that a test that is 1% incorrect, in truth is 99% incorrect when it is used to test millions of people. Let me explain all this with a computational example.

Let’s assume that a lab uses a test that is 99% correct. Then let’s consider an illness that only occurs in one out of 10,000 people, such as a certain type of skin cancer. And now calculate for yourself the result if one million people are tested with this test.

1. 100 people would be correctly diagnosed with cancer illness (1,000,000 : 10,000 = 100), since every 10,000th patient has this illness.

2. 9,999 would be incorrectly diagnosed with cancer (every 100th patient)

Now please count how many number people have been diagnosed with cancer and you get the number 10,099 (9,999 plus 100 = 10,099). Of the 10,099, cancer patients in reality only 100 are ill, which means that this test would be incorrect in 99% of all cases where cancer was diagnosed.

You can see that it is a very simple matter to deal with numbers when you present them the way you would like to have them. However the truth often looks quite different, and we must question every number. Patients tell me again and again that their doctor told them that if they would undergo this or that therapy, then they would obtain these or those better chances. I can only recommend that you please have these numbers confirmed in writing, or have your doctor write down the name of the book or the study where you can read about them. Why do I say this? It’s simple! Unfortunately in recent years I have often experienced that therapists are not mathematicians, and apparently as a consequence they deal with numbers in a manner that would earn my son an F in grade school math if he did the same.

Please pay attention when your doctor tells you that your chances of survival will improve by ?? percent through therapy XY. Thoroughly review such numbers and if your doctor takes offence, which unfortunately quite often occurs, then I would pose this question to you: “Do you really want to be treated by a doctor who simply comes up with numbers as he needs them?”

Your life and the happiness of your family are involved here, not getting a prize for being the most agreeable patient. Good doctors have no problems with such questions – why should they be a problem for you?

Translate »