The Menopause, HRT, and Breast Cancer

I have written about the menopause, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and breast and cervical cancer many times before. To do so again is certainly deja vu! But headline health news recently provided us with "good" news - at least this is how it has been universally heralded:

HRT Prescription Charges to be Reduced.

       "The cost of repeat HRT prescriptions will be cut in a move set to save women who rely on the treatment 'hundreds of pounds per year', the government has announced. Working with NHS England, the government says it will look to implement longer prescribing cycles 'in line with NICE guidelines', so women receive fewer prescriptions, meaning they pay fewer prescription charges. The government has asked NHS England to review current practice and the barriers to implementing NICE guidance. To further improve access to HRT, the government will also look at the possibility of combining 2 hormone treatments into one prescription, so women only pay a single charge. It says this change would benefit around 10% of women accessing HRT".

Patients in particular were said to be delighted at the outcome - clearly the decision is going to save them money - and this is usually a good reason for delight! But should it be? The history of HRT is closely linked to breast and cervical cancer.

• In the early 2000's, research began to demonstrate the strong link between HRT and cancer, to the extent that the research was stopped because it was considered unsafe, and unethical to continue.

       "....several trials produced results that were so bad they had to be discontinued.  In 2002, trials conducted by the Women’s Health Initiative in the USA, described as 'the largest and best designed federal studies of HRT'  was halted because women taking the hormones had a significantly increased risk of breast  and cervical cancer, heart attacks, stroke and blood clots. More trials were terminated in 2007, when a study of 5,692 women taking HRT raised similar concerns but added 'more definition to the health risks' (WDDTY 9 August 2007, source: British Medical Journal, 2007; 335: 239-44).

• So from 2007, some 5 years too late, HRT was virtually suspended for several years.
• Then, in 2015, like magic, HRT was rejuvenated. The research was discounted, so doctors could began prescribing it again, and so women began taking it again - in large numbers. HRT might cause breast cancer, heart problems and dementia, but (what the hell) women should take it anyway!
• But then, in 2016, just one year later, there was a warning. HRT could cause breast cancer! As I said at the time, it was 'old news' presented as 'new news'. But nothing was done, no action was taken to protect women.
  
• Now, a further 5 years on, we are being asked to rejoice - because these dangerous drugs are to be made available to women far cheaper than they were before.

What this demonstrates, of course, is that medical science has a short memory, even about its own research, and further, that this amnesia places patients at risk of dangerous and harmful drugs. It tells us that the conventional medical establishment is prepared to give patients pharmaceutical drugs, regardless of the harm they are known to cause!

So what does conventional medicine say about the causes of breast cancer? This is just one of the serious adverse reactions to HRT, but this is what the UK's NHS state

        "The causes of breast cancer are not fully understood, making it difficult to say why one woman may develop breast cancer and another may not."

If you persevere, and continue down the page, after causes such as 'age', 'family history', 'previous breast cancer and lumps', 'dense breast tissue' (all of which the patient, nor medicine can do anything about), you get to hormone replacement, and a recognition that "HRT is associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer". Then it suggests that

        "There is no increased risk of breast cancer if you take HRT for less than 1 year. But if you take HRT for longer than 1 year, you have a higher risk of breast cancer than women who never use HRT."

Yet surely this is what the government has now negotiated for women, cheaper repeat prescriptions for a drug that should not be used for more than one year! What kind of medicine is this? It is more than amnesia. It provides patients with price incentives to take a dangerous drug for longer, against it's own current advice!

The NHS goes on to accept that "the increased risk of breast cancer falls after you stop taking HRT, but some increased risk remains for more than 10 years compared to women who have never used HRT".

The advice for women should surely be not to take HRT. But as pharmaceutical medicine has nothing else, certainly nothing safer to offer, it is prepared to prescribe a drug that has been proven to be lethal for women for many decades - since the 1940's.

And this is done by a medical system whose first principle is supposed to be "First, do no harm".

Yet there is an alternative, a safer medicine available. It is homeopathy. Homeopathy can deal with the menopause, and do so without causing breast and cervical cancer, heart problems, and dementia.

Why Homeopathy? for the Menopause.

Postscript: July 2022

HRT and the Menopause
So HRT was safe until the early 2000's: then it was so unsafe that research was stopped because these drugs were too dangerous; then new research in 2015 (financed by the pharmaceutical industry) 'proved' it was safe...... AND NOW "new evidence" is being considered that NICE guidelines might have to be renewed - because the drug is causing breast cancer.
    * When will conventional medicine learn?
    * When will patients learn that Con Med is not to be trusted?
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/womens-health/nice-to-review-menopause-guidance-over-evidence-of-hrt-cancer-risk/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pulse%20daily
 

Breast Cancer. And its links to Pharmaceutical Drugs

Data from the Office for National Statistics showed that between 1971 to 2004 the number of breast cancer cases rose by 81% to 36,939 cases - in England alone. It had become the most common form of cancer, and it was estimated that 1 in 9 women could expect to get breast cancer during their lifetime. In 1971 the incidence of the disease was 66.9 per 100,000 people. In 2004 this had risen to 120.8 per 100,000. It became, and remains, the disease most feared by women.

Nor is breast cancer a disease that only strikes older women. As with most other cancers it now affects people at any age, and an increased incidence has been recorded across all age groups. Among women aged 20 to 34, the disease increased by 50% between 1971 to 2001. Morever, several hundred men contract the disease each year now.

So why did the rates of breast cancer rise so steeply during that time? Conventional medicine has come up with a variety of explanations, mostly based on a range of 'lifestyle factors', such as diet, increased alcohol consumption, obesity, more women going out to work, earlier menstruation, reduced breast feeding, smaller families and later menopause. It has even been called the disease of prosperity!

Maybe. But 'prosperity' probably account for only a small part of the huge increase. The role of pharmaceutical drugs has to be considered. For instance, in a Guardian article, dated 8th August 2006, Sarah Boseley wrote this:

               "The daughters of the thousands of women who took an anti-miscarriage pill more than 40 years ago are at increased risk of breast cancer. The drug, known as DES (diethylstilbestrol), was commonly prescribed for pregnant women between the 1940s and 1960s if doctors thought they were at risk of miscarrying and sometimes also for morning sickness. There are no definite figures for the number of women who took it, but research suggests there may have been as many as 200,000 in the UK".

The article, written at a time when the mainstream media was prepared to be mildly critical of conventional medicine, described a study by scientists at Boston University, published in the Journal of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. It found that the daughters of women who took DES had an almost double risk of breast cancer of their peers. And the more their mothers took of this now banned drug, the greater their chance of developing the disease. Concern about the side effects of DES started in the early 1970s when first it was discovered that 1 in 1,000 girls born to women who had taken the drug were likely to develop vaginal cancer. It was then found that the women who had taken it had an increased risk of breast cancer.

DES was withdrawn in the 1970’s and is no longer used in the developed world - except for prostate cancer (men beware)!

So it is well known that pharmaceutical drugs has been a important part in the rise of breast cancer figures. And if there were sufficient research done on the adverse reaction of pharmaceutical drugs, more evidence would almost certainly be found.

Another culprit is probably chest X-rays. A Times-on-Line article, dated 27th June 2006 outlined research on 1,600 women that indicated that women under-20 who had a chest X-ray had a 2.5 times greater chance of developing breast cancer before their 40th birthday, whilst women with a family history of breast cancer were 54% more likely to suffer the disease. The findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Calls were made for further research into the link between breast cancer and X-rays. They have not been done - conventional medicine does not go out of its way looking for 'bad' news about any of its treatments!

Yet for many years, the massive use of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) during the previous decades had been the drug most implicated in the rise and rise of breast cancer. So what happens when the prescription of a pharmaceutical drug, implicated in causing disease, is significantly reduced? If HRT was a significant cause of breast cancer, perhaps the increased incidence of the disease would also start to fall.

And this is exactly what has happened!

In July 2002, research indicated that HRT can increase the risk of breast cancer (and heart disease too), and the tests were halted as a result. Many thousands of women came off the drug as a result, at least 50%. In 2003 the University of Texas recorded a 7% drop in breast cancer rates, and a 12% drop in women aged 50 to 69. This was reported in USA Today, 14 December 2006; and New York Times, 15 December 2006). According to a BBC News report, 15th December 2006, UK researches also measured a drop in breast cancer cases. Professor Valerie Beral, director of Cancer Research UK's Cancer Epidemiology Unit, was reported as saying that there had also been a drop in breast cancer incidence in women aged 50-64 between 2003 and 2004.

So here is a very clear link between disease, breast cancer in this instance, and pharmaceutical drug treatment. Yet what happened following the virtual withdrawal of HRT, and the reduction in breast cancer rates, defies belief!

The conventional medical establishment put this evidence of reduced breast cancer as a victory! Our doctors told us that it indicated that conventional medicine was beginning to win the battle with cancer generally, and breast cancer was put forward to justify the claim! This was a brilliant piece of marketing!

• First, conventional medicine causes a disease. 
• Second, it withdraws the drug that has caused the disease. 
• Third, it claims the credit for reducing the disease, even though it caused it in the first place!

Good marketing perhaps, but little to do with the reality, and even less to do with honesty! And unfortunately what happened afterwards has little to do with patient safety. Conventional medicine has tried to rehabilitate HRT, which means that more women are taking the drug, and many of them will contract breast cancer as a result. I have written about this rehabilitation in two blogs.

Menopause Issues and NICE guidelines? HRT might cause cancer, heart problems and dementia, but what the hell, women should take it anyway!

HRT treatment causes cancer. Old news, but new news!

There is only one lesson that can be learnt from this sequence of events - conventional medicine cannot be trusted with our health. It creates illness with its drugs. It creates profit from our illness. And then our doctors do not tell us truth.

So one of the best ways to avoid breast cancer is to avoid pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines - at any cost!

DCIS and Breast Cancer. Beware conventional treatment!

DCIS or 'Ductal Cell Carcinoma in Situ' is often described as a 'pre-cancerous' condition, where there are "abnormal cancer cells in the breast ducts, but the cancer has not yet spread" (NHS Choices). It is, say conventional medicine, a precursor to breast cancer. But, in actually fact, DCIS is not cancer

The diagnosis of DCIS is rising rapidly. A Natural News article states that in the USA it rose from 1.87 per 100,000 to 32.5 in 2004. It has been a similar rise in Britain, and throughout Europe, and no doubt elsewhere.

DCIS is a 'new disease', and condition barely mentioned prior to the 1980's. But technically it is not cancer, and statistically the Natural News article states that the risk of dying from DCIS within five years is "a mere 0.7%". Yet what a God-send it has been for the conventional medical establishment!

Breast cancer rates can be seen to rise, significantly. But the death rate appears to be falling. And conventional medicine can claim responsibility for this magnificent outcome! 

There is also the benefit that DCIS requires treatment, and conventional treatment for DCIS are similar to those for breast cancer, including radiation, lumpectomies and the use of the drug Tamoxifen.

A friend was diagnosed with DCIS in 2006, had an operation, and then spent several years taking Tamoxifen. Like 99.3% of women diagnosed with DCIS she did not go on to develop breast cancer. She put this down to the operation, and to taking the drug. So what can be said about the value of conventional medical treatment?

• Did treatment really prevent her developing breast cancer? 
• And did her experience go into the statistics about conventional medicines successful treatment?

The reverse may well be true. As the Natural News article states, conventional treatments for DCIS can actually be the cause of the breast cancer it purports to prevent!

My friend had regular mammograms, and it was one such test that discovered her condition.
Yet mammography emits low-dose radiation and repeated exposure to this is known to increase breast cancer risk. This study, for examples, found "that low-dose ionizing radiation, and particularly exposures during childhood, increase breast cancer risk".

She was quickly operated on, a 'Lumpectomy'. The effects of surgery on tumour growth has been known about for a very long time, and as the Natural Health article says:

         "It is an established fact that surgery breaches the natural barriers that encase a tumor which enables cancer cells to escape and spread. The trauma of surgery stimulates tumor cell growth as well and reduces natural killer cell activity that is designed to destroy cancer cells".

And then she spent several years on the drug, Tamoxifen. There have been serious question about this particular drug for many decades. The WHO actually classifies this drug as a carcinogen. It is known to trigger more dangerous forms of cancer, including breast and endometrial cancer, as well as cancer of the stomach and colon. It is also known to cause blood clots, a 'fatty' liver, low sex drive, and memory impairment.

My friend did not develop breast cancer. But she did die of Alzheimer's Disease, shortly after stopping Tamoxifen.

Her death will never be attributed to Tamoxifen, or indeed to any other conventional medical treatment. Death certificates are signed by conventional doctors, and they do not implicate the medical practices they themselves practice. So officially, she died of dementia. The question remains, however, what caused the dementia?

The fact is that she undertook all three conventional treatments for a condition that kills only 0.7% of those diagnosed with the condition. This needs to be addressed, not just for her, not just for the treatment of other women with DCIS, but for patients receiving conventional treatment for any condition.

In other words, we need to begin questioning the safety of all conventional medical treatment, which often cause health outcomes far worse than the condition originally treated.

Breast Cancer and Tamoxifen. BBC meekly announces 'great news'! But the drug has very serious side effects that the BBC fails to mention!

On 15th January 2013, BBC News meekly and slavishly announced 'great new information' for those women who fear contracting Breast Cancer. The news, on BBC radio and television, was supported by this article on the BBC News website.

Then on 25th June 2013 BBC News meekly and slavishly announced the 'good news' again. The NHS were now going to allow women to take the drug, Tamoxifen, for up to 5 years, in order to prevent breast cancer.

The way this news is being treated by the BBC demonstrates just how partial they are in reporting on anything to do with health, and how they are failing in their duty to inform the general public about the dangers of Conventional Medicine. The news initially referred to NICE's decision to examine whether pharmaceutical drugs can now be used as a preventative for breast cancer, especially for women who have a history of breast cancer in their family. The later news was its decision to allow it.

Tamoxifen, the drug being considered by NICE for this purpose, is not a new one. I will outline in this blog what is known, and what is suspected about the DIEs (Disease Inducing Effects) relating to this drug. But first, the 'side-effects' mentioned by the BBC. This is what they said in their article.

               "But this (the benefits claimed by NICE) would have to be balanced against the risks associated with taking the drug, such as blood clots".

So, just a few blood clots. Well worth the risk, then!

Except that this ignores just about every one of the serious side effects Tamoxifen has been associated with for the last 30 years and more!

• The benefits of Tamoxifen have been exaggerated, and the 'side-effects under-stated, as described fully in this GreenMedInfo.Com article.

• Tamoxifen actually causes breast cancer, especially in long-term users. This was outlined by the magazine "What Doctor's Don't Tell you" in October 2009.

• The breast cancers caused by Tamoxifen is a far more aggressive for of breast cancer. This is an important observation made about Tamoxifen, and reported in this Natural Health article.

• Tamoxifen was declared to be a 'carcinogen' by WHO (the World Health Organisation) in the late 1990's, and this was confirmed in the NIH "Report on Carcinogens", 2000, in which NIH reported:

               "Tamoxifen is listed in the 9th Report as a "known human carcinogen" based on evidence from studies in humans that indicate tamoxifen increases the risk of uterine cancer in women".

• Tamoxifen can cause secondary tumours. This was actually reported in the mainstream media on 26th August 2009, by Steve Connor, Science Editor, the Independent. The article stated

               "A drug widely used to treat breast cancer has been found to increase four-fold the risk of developing a second tumour in the opposite breast, scientists have said".

Why BBC News, along with the rest of the mainstream media, routinely ignores this 'contrary' evidence is a question worth asking by anyone who is being treated with drug-dominated treatment on the NHS. Are we being given the full facts? As a a public broadcaster the BBC is not dependent upon advertising revenue. The Pharmaceutical , and related companies are big advertising spenders, and so they will have an influence on what is reported. If anything, therefore, the BBC should be able to take a far more independent and dispassionate view on these medical and health issues.

Yet, BBC News steadfastly refuses to do so - not just in this case but on almost every health issue on which it has reported for the last decade or so.

Sick people in this country are not well served by its media. The NHS is dominated by conventional medicine, and in particular, by dominated by drug-based treatments. Of course, it is entirely fair that the mainstream media presents what NICE are planning to do. But if patients are to be properly informed about health matters journalists have to be more aware of the full picture. And as far as BBC (or public funded) journalism is concerned, they have to recognise that it is their duty, contained in their Editorial Guidelines, to report impartially on health matters. And, as in this case, BBC News routinely fails to do so.

PS. For anyone interested in a more natural way of treating or preventing cancer, click on this is an excellent source of information - information you will NOT hear about in the mainstream media.

See also my blog at
http://safe-medicine.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/another-cause-of-breast-cancer.html

Mammograms and Breast Cancer: the failure of Conventional Medical Testing

The usual focus of this blog are Big Pharma drugs - mostly dangerous for patients, often ineffective, and usually extraordinarily expensive. So what about the various medical tests that conventional medicine uses routinely to discover what is wrong with us? Are they safe? Are they effective? And are there better alternatives available?

Conventional medicine has been subjecting women routinely to mammograms (to check for breast cancer) for many years now, particularly women over 50 years. Listening to NHS doctors we believe them to be safe, effective, and life-saving. The mainstream media (of course) do not tell us differently. So by regularly subjecting women to these tests, what do they get, and how do they benefit? 

As usual, it is the WWW that paints quite another picture, a picture that most women know nothing about. This Natural Health article outlines most of the dangers of mammography, the main one's being:
          * exposure to harmful levels of radiation
          * inaccuracy (including many 'false positives')
          * expense

The exposure to large levels of radiation means that mammograms have been found to cause the very problem they are intended to prevent - breast cancer! We have noticed this in other blogs previously, when talking about Big Pharma drugs. This Dr Mercola article outlines research that has demonstrated this danger, and also provides some detail about how this dangerous screening technique was originally approved by drug regulatory authorities.

Yet it is the large number of 'false positives' produced by mammography that is probably equally as concerning, not least because women who are falsely diagnosed with breast cancer then receive treatment they do not need, and which may well be detrimental to their health. That is, they receive more conventional medical treatment!

False positives, over the years, has also increased both the estimates of the problem, and the concerns generated about breast cancer. Nowhere is this more so than with the diagnosis of 'ductal carcinoma in situ' or DCIS.

               "Because DCIS is almost invariably asymptomatic and has no palpable lesions, it would not be known as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the use of x-ray diagnostic technology".

In other words, DCIS was once unknown prior to the introduction of mammography. The article goes on to explain why the condition is not serious, and certainly does not require the drastic medical interventions it now receives. Instead, it recommends 'watchful waiting', and does so on the basis of research that has shown untreated tumours usually regress when left untreated.

The Conventional Medical Establishment, supported by the silence of the mainstream media, wants us to believe that Mammograms save lives, through early detection and treatment, regarding the condition as 'life-threatening'.  But what is becoming clear, at least in non-Conventional Medical circles, is despite what we have been told for many years, is that mammograms do not save lives - or not many anyway.

The question arises, then - are there better, safer alternatives to Mammograms available? Watchful waiting is one strategy, but Thermography is another, outlined here as a safer alternative to Mammography. Yet if this is a safer technique, why is it not being offered to women by ConMed doctors, and the NHS? Why is there no choice?

So how long have we known about the dangers of mammography? I made the following notes from an article written in 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' in July 2005!!

          "Growing evidence from the US suggests that half of all diagnoses of breast cancer might not be cancer at all. DCIS ... is commonly picked up by mammograms, and yet the plain fact is that most DCIS does not become cancerous and if left alone will cause no problem at all. So if mannography is responsible for over-diagnosing breast cancer, is there a safer, more reliable way to screen for breast cancer? Thermography - which measures skin temperature - has not only been shown to pick up cancers eight to ten years earlier than mammography, but also does not expose the patient to harmful radiation".

One recurring theme about the practice of conventional medicine is that the dangers of treatments are often known for many years before any action is taken. And this seems to be so quite regardless of whether there are safer, more effective and cheaper alternatives. During these years, when dangers are known, but patients are not informed, treatments are accepted based on the assurances they are given. Too often, as in the case of Mammograms, these assurances are untrue, and not based upon good science, or good clinical practice.

The Failure of Conventional Medicine

Conventional medicine is failing because it is both ineffective and highly dangerous for patients. 

Yet, the public are not being given the evidence of this catastrophic failure. Governments, National Health Services throughout the world, doctors, and perhaps most alarmingly of all, the mainstream media, are failing to tell us about the gross failings of the ConMed Establishment, and of Big Pharma drugs in particular.

Each week, this blog will collect together a series of articles from the internet that demonstrate this failure, and the underlying reason for an increasing number of people looking for non-drug medical therapies that are both safer and more effective.

Big Pharma drugs - the new epidemic sweeping across America (and Europe too)?
Did you know, for instance, that Big Pharma prescription drugs now kill more people than illegal drugs? Indeed, pharmaceutical drugs have become the biggest single cause of death in the USA.

Fresh doubts over flu vaccines
Click on this link if you did not know about the increasing doubts about the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccine we are all being exorted to take. No such doubts have been seen in the mainstream media - we have just been told of the benefits of the vaccine? Did you know, for example, that whilst doctor's might be recommending you to have the vaccine, doctor's themselves, in huge numbers, are refusing to have one?

Show us the evidence for the flu jab.
In fact, doctors are even asking the government, who are criticising them, to provide them with the evidence that the flu vaccine is effective.

Flu vaccines effective in 1.5% cases - not 60% as we have been told
The concern about the effectiveness of the flu vaccine is shown in this 'shock vaccine study'! A shock, of course, only if you have not discovered the truth about ConMed, and the length's Big Pharma will go to sell their drugs.

Flu? There is a better defence
And why aren't we all being told that there are better, safer, more effective alternatives to flu vaccines?

20 Vaccine 'Trivia' Facts
Of course, vaccines have never been safe. No vaccine. Is this right? Have a look at this article from Vactruth, which outlines just 20 examples when vaccines have proven to be either useless, dangerous, or both. Vactruth is one of the foremost websites investigating the dangers of vaccines, and seeking to educate a misinformed public.

US Government Agency has known all along how dangerous vaccines are
Or perhaps look at this, from Tim Bolen's website, frightening evidence that government agencies know about the dangers of vaccines, but haven't been prepared to tell us.

Vaccines and the increasing rate of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Cancer
This sort of negative evidence about vaccines, though, is coming out all the time though - so we don't have to look at the history of vaccine cover-ups in order to know that they are linked with patient harm, and the increasing rate of diseases of all kinds.

Healthy babies given dangerous and unnecessary drugs
Or, how often are we told about Big Pharma giving us drugs when we do not need them? And it would appear that not even healthy babies are not safe.

ADHD Drugs are a common source of drug reaction.
Of course, children are more susceptible to the disease-inducing-effects of drugs, and this link states that ADHD medication cause substantial adverse reactions in children.

NHS Breast Screening programme under review
And it is not just drugs that are a problem. What about useless tests that lead to taking toxic drugs - unnecessarily? Well, the BBC did report on this (26th October 2011). But the point it not just that the test is 'being questioned' but that lot's of women, who did not need treatment for breast cancer, received it - despite its toxicity and dangers.  Of course, in their reporting, the BBC did not focus on this, or inform us about the dangers (and sheer nastiness) of ConMed cancer treatment.

Pfizer pays $14.5 million to settle Detrol off-label suit
So do Big Pharma tell us that their drugs are dangerous? Of course not, they are in business to make money by selling drugs. Big Pharma companies are regularly paying out $millions of dollars in compensation for the dangerous drugs they provide for patients. In some parts of the more litigious world, they abound. And if you want more - here is another example (there are many, many more). My question is - shouldn't patients be told before they are harmed by such drugs?  But again, we rarely, if ever, hear about these dangers.

So why the cover-up? By government? By government health agencies? By the NHS? By our doctors? And above all, by the mainstream media? Why do we not hear about these compensation payments? And, indeed, who pays to set up these cover-up's?

On BBC Radio, on 25th October 2011, I heard a programme discussing the cost of treatment for Macular Degeneration. One treatment, they said, was cheaper, but it had 'side-effects'. However, not once did the programme tell the listeners what the 'side-effects' of this drug (Avastin) were!

The BBC, like most of the mainstream media, does this all the time - it salutes new wonder drugs - but never tells us about the damage drugs do to us. The question is - why? Who is controlling the BBC? Here are a couple of articles on the subject that the BBC certainly did not use.

Can using Avastin for Macular Degeneration cause blindness?
So Avastin can cause blindness? Yes, a drug used for a condition that can cause blindness is actually being treated by a drug that causes blindness! Somehow, this does not seem to be a good deal - at any price! This is especially so as Avastin has also been associated with causing fatal brain inflammation!

Macular Degeneration affects nearly 15 million Americans leading patients to seek alternative healthcare solutions
Nor, of course, did the BBC say anything about alternative treatments. This article states that there are 15 million people with Macular Degeneration in the USA alone - and that many people are seeking alternative therapy. The article focuses on Acupuncture - but homeopathy, and many other therapies, are a safer alternative to Avastin.

More pharmaceutical drugs causing more problems

The bad news just keeps on coming about the dangers of conventional medicine. Yet none of these stories, to my knowledge, are published in the mainstream media. And I don't suppose doctors and GPs are telling their patients.

We are just supposed to live in blissful ignorance about the dangers of Big Pharma drugs!

Actos, a diabetes drug, causes liver damage
http://gaia-health.com/articles401/000428-actos-promoted-for-diabetes-prevention.shtml

Prozac doesn't treat common symptoms of depression!
http://www.wddty.com/prozac-fails-to-treat-common-symptoms-of-depression.html

Common blood pressure drug causes recurrence of breast cancer
http://www.naturalnews.com/032210_blood_pressure_drugs_breast_cancer.html

ACE Inhibitors, usually taken for blood pressure, produce breast cancer
http://www.wddty.com/popular-drugs-cause-breast-cancer-to-recur.html

Why anti-cancer drug Avastin causes potentially fatal brain inflammation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080213095631.htm

GSK to settle yet another 1000 Avandia lawsuits
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/gsk-poised-settle-another-1000-avandia-suits/2011-05-05

Everyone now has to look for safer medical therapies. Conventional Medicine is dominated by Big Pharma drugs, and they are not just useless, they are lethal.

Radiation Therapy. Is it safe?

My blog often highlights ConMed drugs because they cause disease and kill. But what about other ConMed 'therapies'? Radiation therapy is increasing, for a variety of testing and treatments. Are they safe? I have recently come across this - from the New York Times, giving access to a variety of articles examining the issues that are arising from the increasing use of medical radiation, and the technologies that deliver it. It makes frightening reading. 


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/radiation_boom/index.html?ref=health

Topics include:
After stroke scans, patients face serious new health risks
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/01radiation.html?_r=1&ref=radiation_boom
Radiation faces new cures, and new way to harm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?ref=radiation_boom
As technology surges, radiation safeguards lag
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/27radiation.html?ref=radiation_boom

To support these growing concerns, and to show that they are not new, this is an extract from Kevin Morris's book, called "It's only a disease; how I fought terminal cancer and won" which features the history of the treatment of cancer with radiotherapy.

"The story of radiotherapy's rise to prominence as a cancer treatment is 
a fascinating one. James Douglas of the Phelps-Dodge copper mining 
company, set up the National Radium Institute in 1913. At the same time, 
he made a massive, one hundred thousand- dollar gift to Memorial 
Hospital in the United States. As the hospital was in serious financial 
difficulties, Douglas' gift was most welcome, but it came with several 
strings attached. He insisted that the hospital only treat cancer 
patients, that it routinely offer radium treatment, and he also 
installed his friend as chief pathologist and later as medical director. 
The Memorial went on to become one of the main cancer research and 
treatment centres in the States and radiation treatment was on offer 
there from the beginning. Douglas' shrewd moves placed the Memorial 
Hospital in the position of being a distribution centre for the radium 
produced by his mining interests.

In 1902, the first incidence of a human cancer brought about by 
X-radiation was noted and in 1906 it was suggested that exposure to 
radiation from radium could cause leukaemia. By 1911, 94 cases of 
radiation induced cancer had been reported, more than half of them in 
doctors or technicians. In 1911, 94 cases of cancer caused by radiation 
had been noted. Despite these serious cautions, doctors appeared to be 
swayed into using it by the profit motive. In 1914, one doctor told the 
New York Times that,

"Something is created which kills many patients. I cannot tell, nobody 
can tell, for four or five years just what the results will be. I simply 
feel that I've shoved these patients over a little quicker." /The sting 
in the tail came in the doctor's comment that '/I can double my money in 
a year while charging 4 cents per milligram per hour.' New York Times, 
January 27 1914.


What Kevin suggests here is that the concerns about radiation have been around for a long time - and that ConMed does not seem to learn from its many, regular mistakes that put patients at risk.

Drug company lies, and HRT

More lies from Big Pharma, in order to sell dangerous, toxic drugs. This is just a sequel to the news, nine years ago, that HRT caused breast and cervical cancer. It has been reported at

Journal of the American Medical Association, 2010; 304: 1684-92


HRT was a major money winner for ConMed until research (rather late in the day, as usual) showed how dangerous it was. Sales dwindled (and breast cancer rates reduced with those dwindling sales), but Big Pharma remained upbeat! They had profits to generate, to hell with all those women!

They have tried to downplay the breast cancer risks for over 9 years by claiming that the cancers caused by the drug were not aggressive and were easily treated. Cancer? Easily treated? Presumably treated by more or their toxic drugs!


Now the same researchers have discovered that the claim is not true – HRT causes advanced and life-threatening breast cancer.

Now, there's a surprise! But at least it has enabled doctors to continue prescribing HRT to thousands of women, exposing them to the risk of developing an aggressive form of breast cancer. And, of course, Big Pharma has been able to pocket their ill-gotten profits from the distress, agony and death of patients.

What an obnoxious business.

Tamoxifen. Another cause of breast cancer?

When doctors stopped prescribing HRT several years ago, the incidence of breast cancer fell! 

ConMed drugs are now seriously implicated in the epidemic levels of this awful disease.

* There is evidence that antibiotics many cause breast cancer.
* Tamoxifen, a drug prescribed for breast cancer, was found in 2009 to cause of a highly virulent form of breast cancer.
* Mammography, a test for diagnosing breast cancer, is also known to cause breast cancer.

And now, a new test - BSGI (Breast Specific Gamma Imagining) - has been introduced. Is it safer than a mammogram? Of course not! This nuclear based treatment is probably even worse! This is how it has been described.

"... one single BSGI ..... carries a lifetime risk of inducing fatal cancer that is far greater than the cancer risk associated with having annual screening mammograms starting at age 40".

http://www.NaturalNews.com/z029749_nuclear_imaging_breast_cancer.html 

Women are particularly at risk from ConMed treatment, not just from their drugs, but also from their 'diagnostic testing' techniques. One question that needs to be asked is - why are so many 'new' treatments even more dangerous than 'old' treatments? 

Another is why do drugs and tests designed to prevent or to treat a disease actually cause the disease?

Perhaps the only solution for patients is to say 'No' firmly to Conventional Medical treatment, and look for medical therapies that are safer.

Breast Cancer - a Conventional Medical triumph?

I have spent most of this morning listening to the BBC giving us news that breast cancer deaths have fallen in the UK, since the 1980's. Apparently French researchers have shown that the UK breast cancer rate has dropped by about one-third - "thanks to better care and speedier diagnosis".

Wonderful news - a triumph for ConMed?

Well, no, not really. What was never mentioned was that the cause of much breast cancer, certainly from the 1980's until a few years ago was that most women were given HRT for menopausal symptoms, and one result of this was a major epidemic of breast cancer. Then, as always happens, after decades of prescribing a dangerous treatment, ConMed discovered that it was dangerous, and stopped prescribing it.

So what is happening here? ConMed gives us a drug that causes an epidemic. Then withdraws it. Then claims that it has stopped an epidemic. It is marvellous propaganda, which the mainstream media is willing to pass on to us, without question! But it is an enormous lie!

It is a well-known technique however, which ConMed has often used. ConMed, for instance, claims to have been so successful it has led to increased longevity. That is, we are all living longer because of ConMed drugs! What they have actually done, of course, is to take as its baseline a time when death rates were higher than they have ever been (early and mid-19th century, when all the ravages of the agrarian and industrial revolutions had resulted in high population density, non-existant sanitation, poisonous water supply, squalid housing, poor diet, and dangerous working practices, et al), and compared it with today, when public health measures, and 150 year of social policy, have removed many of those lethal factors.

The History of Conventional Medicine

So whilst everyone is led to believe that ConMed has transformed our lives, it is merely taking credit for public health policies, for which it deserves little credit. ConMed has indeed reduced breast cancer - but only by being forced to withdraw one of its most profitable drugs

Natural approaches to illness

Since writing my Cancer and Homeopathy series my attention has been drawn to this website, one well worth looking at for anyone suffering from serious illness, and wanting to use medical therapies and approaches that are safe.


P{lease take a minute to look at this website. You will notice, at the bottom of this page, a list of quotations from conventional medics about what they think about ConMed treatment of cancer - most illuminating.


http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/alternative-cancer-treatment.html#On%20Conventional%20Cancer%20Treatment

Cancer and Homeopathy (2)

It is not possible for anyone to claim that homeopathy cure cancer? It is against the law! So look at the experience of Gemma, who recovered from cancer after ConMed practitioners had done whatever they could, and sent her home to die. She is still alive, and a valued colleague. Her story shows that ConMed has little to offer some cancer patients, and that if ‘failures‘ like Gemma recover they cannot, or will not, go on to admit that homeopathy has played any part in the recovery. These are Gemma’s own words. It is long, for a blog - but it is well worth reading. (Alternatively, watch it now on her own video).

"I was a school registrar in London, aged 26, when diagnosed with cancer. That was 1996. Previously, in July 1992, I had had a condition called hydrocephalus, or water on the brain. I had an operation for this and had made a good recovery. However, as time went on I began to get some alarming symptoms . My short-term memory was really bad at times, making my job very difficult. My eyesight got worse, so that I would bump into things sometimes and I would sleep so deeply so that I could not be woken. Strangely, these symptoms would come and go and I had them checked by a doctor.

My GP in 1993 referred me to St Bartholomew’s Hospital where I had a brain scan. I was told there was nothing wrong with me... but ... my symptoms were getting worse. Later that year, I asked my GP for another referral and in June 1994 and I had another brain scan at Kings College Hospital. It revealed a growth in the middle of my brain. I was assured that this did not need any treatment because it was so small – the size of the little finger.

However in January 1996 I was told at Kings College that I had a few tumors but they were benign. They were too deep to operate on and I was advised to have a brain biopsy. I was then informed that I should have radiology treatment at St Bartholomew’s. It was terrifying. I had to lay face down on a table and have a mask bolted down over my face, so that I would stay perfectly still whilst the treatment took place. At my first appointment, the treatment was about to begin when the radiologist burst through the door and shouted "stop". The treatment could not proceed. They had discovered more tumors down my spine.

I then had to be marked up on my back with a pen - to let the radiographers know where the tumors were so they could direct the radiology on my spine as well as on my head. I was often violently ill after the treatments and all my hair fell out in one weekend...

Months later the results showed the radiology had removed the tumors from my spine but this was not enough. The radiologist advised me to have chemotherapy. My trust was in their hands ... "Doctor knows best".

I returned to the hospital and along with the chemotherapy, I had huge doses of steroids, aimed at preventing any more inflammation or growth of the tumours. In four weeks I had put on four stones in weight, I did not recognize myself in the mirror. My eyesight was getting worse, I had double vision, could only see an arms length away and even that was all fuzzy. My eyelids did not open voluntarily. I had to hold one eyelid up to see anything. When I could walk, I needed a stick. As things got worse I was issued with a wheel chair.

Friday, 13^th October 1996 The consultant told me the treatment was making me worse and there was nothing more he or the hospital could do for me. He wished me all the best and said "have a very good Christmas". I realized  ... his thinking was that it would be my last Christmas. In his report to my GP the consultant’s registrar wrote "I have explained the scan findings to Gemma and her mother. I have explained that chemotherapy has not helped since her disease has progressed during her treatment. I have also stressed that there are no other viable options for treating the disease but that treatment will now be directed at the symptoms".

I decided to go home to be looked after by my parents. That was my lucky turning point ... my sister-in-law called me. Her youngest daughter was having homoeopathic treatment for her eczema following which it had completely cleared up. Did I want to see this homoeopath?

I was a genuine sceptic of alternative medicine and anyway, I had cancer, not just a rash. How could plants and flowers help me? But I did not have anywhere else to turn, so I decided to "give it a go".

The homoeopath came to my parents’ house, as I was unable to visit her. She was very pleasant and kind, asked me lots of questions and gave me some very small white pills. Within a day or two some more bottles arrived which she described as organ remedies and one of those was a blood remedy. Miraculously, shortly afterwards, my blood-count rose which enabled me to avoid an already planned blood transfusion organized by my doctor. Things began to improve and I continued to see the homoeopath on a regular basis. 

Gradually I weaned myself off the steroids, so my weight could begin to reduce. My energy improved and I found I was able to move around more easily. I began to feel like a human being again. After the blood test (the homeopath) (Janice) had put me on a detailed program. Personal counselling, meditation, relaxation, anger management were all part of the therapy. A detoxification plan was arranged. I had remedies to detox the effects of the many medications and the effects of the radiation. Diet and nutritional rebuilding were part of the program. Exercise, moderate at first, new interests and positive thinking were part of the homoeopathic treatment. I received fatty acid liquescence to provide a brain food and a blood tonic. Later I came to know it as omega 3 and 6. I remember the words "you must not waste your energy on being angry" and other such expressions from Janice.

In early 1997, one year after I had been sent home to die, I returned to London and moved back into the shared house I used to live in before my illness. I would still be extremely tired but I was independent again and that felt great ...

In June 1998 I telephoned St Bartholomew’s Hospital to make an appointment ... I saw the same consultant. He did a few tests and said that I had made a "remarkable recovery". He offered me a scan but I did not want one ... I told him about my homeopathic treatment and that I attributed the recovery to that. He walked across the room as if gathering his thoughts, then gave his opinion. He said my recovery was probably due to a delayed reaction to the chemotherapy.

... I controlled my anger and said nothing. It was just the very direct dismissal of my opinions that had raised my ire. Later when I read his letter to my GP I felt a bit better, it read "this young lady has made a remarkable recovery, a few ocular motor movements are her only abnormality. Gemma attributes her recovery to homeopathy and whether it is due to that or a delay in her 1996 chemotherapy remains a mystery. Nevertheless I am delighted to see her in such good health." He was less sure in his written word".

This is Gemma’s story, and I would expect homeophobes and medical fundamentalists to deny her experience! But you cannot deny the medical diagnosis, or her recovery.

Gemma studied for 4 years for her qualification in homeopathy, and she has been working as a homeopath for some 10 years now. What is Gemma’s conclusion now? This is what she says:

“Do not get me wrong, I know homoeopathy or nutrition cannot cure everyone, in fact I am convinced it will not. However, I am equally convinced it will help many people. For those, a minority who have the information (who have the vision and the money), they can go for private treatment, it is readily available. But the majority of patients with cancer and other chronic diseases suffer needlessly and many die at an early age. Having got a second chance at life, I feel duty bound, even passionate, to let others know that there are other choices. What I would love to see today is an integrated health service where complementary medicine and conventional medicine work hand-in-hand sharing their skills and giving better service and hopes to the many patients out there. 

One sad note, her homeopath died in 2006. She was a special person and had been in active practice for twenty years and contributed to the health of many people. Her work was key to my second chance”.

Gemma Hoefkens works as a complementary health practitioner and can be contacted at 0121 311 2824 and on www.homoeopathysuttoncoldfield.co.uk 

For the next blog in this series, click here.

Cancer and Homeopathy

I have recently been in contact with two ‘cancer survivors’, and their stories are worth telling. Therefore the next 4 blogs will focus on homeopathy and cancer. It will make no claims that “homeopathy cures cancer”, but will centre around the two cases, were in each  ConMed diagnosed terminal cancer, the patients were treated homeopathically, and both got better.

Conventional Medicine often make claims that its drugs can treat cancer, even though there is little or no evidence that it does. Certainly there is little convincing evidence beyond (at best) giving the patient a few additional months of life. But to the extent that it does even this it does so at huge financial cost, and usually at great personal cost in terms of the suffering caused by the treatment.

Many patients with diagnosed cancer seek help from homeopathy, not wanting to go through the well-known additional suffering caused by chemotherapy and radiation treatment. When they do so, and die, medical fundamentalists say that ‘homeopathy killed them’, the implication being twofold:

1. that the diagnosed cancer didn’t kill them, and 

2. that their lives could have been saved had they accepted ConMed treatment. 

This makes it a good opportunity for Conventional Medicine fundemenatlists to claim that homeopathy is ‘dangerous’.

The two cases will demonstrate, at the very least, that more research should be done into the homeopathic treatment of cancer. Indeed, there is a strong case for the NHS to do some serious comparative research on outcomes, using Conventional Medicine, Homeopathy, and indeed other CAM treatments, with the treatment selected for each patient being on the basis of the their personal choices.

Unfortunately, the Conventional Medical monopoly will do no such thing. Indeed, they will usually insist that only their treatments will work and never mention the possibility that alternative treatments may be just, if not more effective, and certainly less traumatic. 

And of course the army of denialists (some of whom regularly litter this blog with their denials) will just dismiss the two cases as ‘anecdotal’ and ‘unscientific’!

No matter. Conventional Medicine routinely dismisses personal experience of successful homeopathic treatment. The self-imposed task of homeophobic denialists is to deny and undermine such cases at any cost. Indeed, as will be seen, conventional medical practitioners, rather than admit that homeopathy has worked will often prefer to claim that they had ‘misdiagnosed’ cancer in the first place! In other words, they will go to any lengths to deny that homeopathy may have had an effect on the outcome!

Such denials are insulting to the individual concerned, effectively calling their experience, and their honesty into question. And it is also a grossly ‘unscientific’ response! After all, the task of real scientists is to explain what is seen to be happening in the world! It is certainly not to say that something happening in front of their eyes is cannot happening.

And what an increasing number of people see happening in the world today, and for the last 200 years, is that millions of people throughout the world, some suffering from serious disease, many diagnosed by ConMed as ‘incurable’, are benefitting from homeopathy every year.

For the next blog in this series click here.

Homeopathy and breast cancer cells

An important paper on homeopathy and cancer appeared in the February 2010 issue of the International Journal of Oncology. Scientists at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDA), led by Dr. Moshe Frenkel, have demonstrated the beneficial effects of homeopathic medicines on breast cancer cells. Four ultra-dilute remedies were used in the study - Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja.

According to the researchers: "The remedies exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against the two breast cancer cell lines, causing cell cycle delay/arrest and apoptosis".

Dr. Frenkel has stated: "This is the first scientific study that investigated the effect of homeopathic remedies on breast cancer cells", and referred to an "exciting possibility" of the "therapeutic opportunity for preferentially eliminating breast cancer cells with minimal damage to the surrounding normal mammary tissue by using homeopathic remedies."

For homeopathy, under attack from pro-ConMed denialists as they are, the paper is important as it shows that ultra-dilute products do have significant physical effects even when the dilution is outside Avogadro's Limit  - that is, when none of the original substance is present. Further it shows that the homeopathic remedies used in the study (and much used in the treatment of people with cancer) can have an effect on cancer cells, equivalent to that of the major chemo-drug used as a control, Paclitaxel (Taxol).

The main difference, of course, is the the homeopathic remedy will have no adverse effect on normal cells.


For further details, see the following:

http://homeopathy.suite101.com/article.cfm/homeopathy-and-breast-cancer#ixzz0iuudPqxj

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/content/view/414/2/lang,english/

http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/news-and-press/news/beneficial-effect-of-homeopathic-medicines-on-breast-cancer-cells