BREAST CANCER. Why is it that conventional medicine does not understand that HRT is a significant cause of this? Who protects patients from harmful drugs?

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) causes breast cancer!

• Conventional medicine has known this for a long time, but they continue to prescribe these drugs to female patients.

Medical science has known this for a long time. In July 2002, research indicated that HRT can increase the risk of breast cancer (and heart disease too), and the test results were so alarming they were immediately halted. Many thousands of women came off the drug as a result, at least 50% of those who had been taken them.

Then, 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). And 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 medical science discovers that HRT causes breast cancer. Then it discovers that rates of breast cancer reduces when less HRT is prescribed.

So why is it that the magazine 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' (WDDTY) had had to tell us that 'HRT causes 1 in 20 breast cancers'? (2nd October 2019). Why did the UK's drug regulator, MHRA, have to tell doctors to discuss 'new' (sic) information on HRT breast cancer risk with women at their next routine appointment?

 Surely our doctors should already know this! They should have known it since 2002, and even earlier. Apparently WDDTY was using a Lancet article as the source of this information (The Lancet, 2019; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31709-X).

               "HRT is twice as risky as doctors feared...."

Why?

               "The risk is greatest .....if it's taken for five years, say researchers from Oxford University. They estimate that one in 20 cases of breast cancer in the UK are caused by the drug..."
Why?

               "And women need to know the risks persist for 10 years afterwards... they don't disappear the moment they stop taking HRT, which has  been the common perception."
Why?

               "HRT prescribing  has been steadily rising over the last 10 years or so, with some studies downplaying health risks...."
Why?

               ".....but the Oxford researchers say it is vital to turn back the dial to the early 1990's when the dangers of the drug were first discovered".

The answer to all these "why's" is that medical science has little or no influence on the conventional medical establishment

• on the pharmaceutical industry (which controls most medical science)
• on the conventional medical establishment (which is supposed to be evidence led)
• or on doctors (who are supposed to be 'science led').

I have recently blogged on the current crisis with Opiate drugs, which have caused serious disease, withdrawal symptoms, and death for many - yet doctors to prescribe more of these drugs, year on year.

It is clear that medical science has little or no influence over conventional medicine, or the drug prescribing practices of our doctors.

The MIMS article, dated 4th September 2019, tacitly confirms this when it states that MHRA, Britain's drug regulator has asked doctors to "discuss (this) new (sic) information on breast cancer risk with women at their next routine appointment. Is this really a sufficient or adequate response to a drug doctors have known to cause breast cancer for over 30 years? Drug regulation is supposed to protect patients from dangerous drugs. Is a chat, some time in the future, a sufficient response to women in danger of contracting breast cancer? There is, it is stated, "no need for urgent action".

Isn't there? Just how dangerous does a drug have to be to our health before doctors are obliged to take urgent action? How dangerous does a drug have to be now before it is banned?

But "women who use, or are planning to use, HRT, should be aware of these 'new' (sic) findings when considering their HRT."

These are NOT new findings. This is NOT news. It is history that is regurgitated every few years, a piece of information that will probably never acted upon, soon forgotten, and brought up again in a few years time. So if women don't know this by now it is because their doctors have not told them, or they have downplayed the information. I have written about this subject, many times, during the last 10 years.

• Tamoxifen. Another cause of breast cancer? (September 2010)  
• The Menopause and Homeopathy (September 2013) 
• Menopause. HRT or Homeopathy? (February 2015) 
• HRT. Reporting the DIEs *Disease Inducing Effects' of Pharma Drugs (February 2015) 
• Menopause Issues and NICE guidelines? HRT might cause cancer, heart problems and dementia, but what the hell, women should take it anyway!(November 2015) 
• HRT treatment causes cancer. Old news, but new news! (August 2016) 
• Breast Cancer. And its links to Pharmaceutical Drugs (December 2017) 
• Breast Cancer. New predictive tool will be another 'game changer'! Or does it miss the most obvious cause of breast cancer? (January 2019)

The only possible conclusion is that both medical science and drug regulation are mere charades. Neither safeguard patients, you and me, from drug harm. Conventional medicine does not pay attention to its findings and directives - when they are negative - or when it has no alternative to the drugs that have been found to harm us.

I suspect that I will be writing about this again, when conventional medicine discovers yet again that breast cancer is caused by HRT!

 

Postscript

Since writing this nothing has happened. HRT is still being prescribed, as before. Medical science might inform doctors that pharmaceutical drug treatment is dangerous - but it does not appear to change their medical practice!

 

WDDTY (February 2021)

"The most common type of HRT increases the risk of breast cancer by up to 80%, a new study has found". (My emphasis). BMJ, 2020; 371, m3873.

 

So here we are again, as I predicted, more 'new' medical science; and I wonder, this time, if it will have any impact on conventional medical practice?

Breast Cancer. New predictive tool will be another 'game changer'! Or does it miss the most obvious cause of breast cancer?

Conventional medicine is always keen to announce new 'medical breakthroughs' that will be a 'game changer' in the way that one disease or another is dealt with, and the mainstream media is keen to publicise them. I have regularly reported on them in previous blogs.

The most recent is in this BBC article (15 January 2019) stating "Breast cancer risk test 'game changer". The article, which quotes Cancer Research UK (a major promoter of the drugs industry, and largely funded by it) states that experts have developed a potentially "game-changing" test to predict a woman's risk of breast cancer which combines all the known risk factors, such as family history, hundreds of genetic markers, and other factors, such as weight, to give the most comprehensive assessment possible.

The factors used in this new 'game changing' test are discussed in the Nature journal website, and outlined in more detail here. Other factors include age, height, body mass index, age at first birth, menarche and menopause, alcohol intake, and much more.

So what about the many pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are known to cause cancer? Use of the contraceptive pill, and HRT (hormone replacement therapy) are mentioned. It would have been hard to ignore these two drugs, but nothing else was included.

The Right Diagnosis website provides a long list of pharmaceutical drugs, and combinations of pharmaceutical drugs, that are known to cause breast cancer. None of these drugs have found their way into the new test! And Right Diagnosis confirms that 'this is not a complete list' - as usual, no-one, certainly not doctors or medical scientists, are totally clear about just how carcinogenic ANY of their drugs are.

And remember, this is just a test for breast cancer. It is not a treatment. But conventional medicine's new mantra is that the earlier cancer is detected, the more chance there is of treating it. However, also remember that all conventional medicine's 'treatments' are known to be harmful and unpleasant.

But conventional medicine knows that it is important for them to keep in patient's minds the hope that they are winning the 'battle' against disease. So the publication of these stories are important to them. They want the mainstream media to carry these stories about future medical breakthroughs. And, as in this case, the media is very willing to comply - meekly, unquestioningly. The Sky News coverage is very similar to that of the BBC. And a simple web search reveals at least 20 similar reports, and as far as I can see not one of them questions whether the factors used in the test are comprehensive.

As usual, it is all just slavish reporting of information supplied by the conventional medical establishment. And conventional medicine does not want to to know about the link with drugs!

This is why the war on cancer, all cancers, has been lost, and why the incidence of cancer is increasing, year on year.

          * In the 1940's only 1 in 20 people got cancer.
          * In 1970s this figure has increased to 1 in 16.
          * In 1990s it had grown to 1 in 10.

The latest figure I have seen is that 1 in 3 people can now expect to get cancer during their lifetime. So two lessons need to be learnt.

1. That we need to call a halt to a medical system that declares war on the body whenever it becomes sick with harmful and dangerous drugs and vaccines, and 
2. To recognise that an important cause of cancer, probably one of the most important causes, is the pharmaceutical drugs we are being given to treat other illnesses.

Certainly, one important way we all have to prevent contracting cancer is to say 'No' to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Which ones? I have listed some of them here, although the drugs mentioned probably only scratch the surface of the real problem.

Yippee! Another Wonder Drug, this time for Breast Cancer! But does it stand up to media hype? And is there a better alternative?

The avalanche of new wonder drugs never seems to cease. There are only two other things seem to match the sheer numbers of these announcements:

• the rise of the diseases these drugs are supposed to treat
• and the profits of the pharmaceutical industry

Still, lets take a look at the two new wonder treatments for advance breast cancer. As I often do, I have used the BBC News feature to describe how they act as advertising agents for the drug company, Pfizer. They always regurgitate the press release, unquestioned and unexamined, as do the rest of our 'free' news organisations!

The BBC described them as 'breakthrough', 'life-changing' drugs, as usual. The news story is that they have now been approved for use in the NHS by NICE, which is not a surprise as they are funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and by people who have worked, or will work in the industry. The drugs are called palbociclib and ribociclib.

Palbociclib was approved in the USA in February 2015, Ribociclib in 2017. Apparently, these breakthrough drugs slow down advanced breast cancer to about 10 months, and can delay the need for chemotherapy. Even if the terms 'breakthrough' and 'life-changing' are supported by these claims is questionable, but certainly they come at a cost. The BBC reported that just one cycle of palbociclib, 21 capsules, £2,950, and for 63 tablets of ribociclib, the price is the same.

To support the case for the drugs the BBC used a patient who had used the drug (without using the word 'anacdotal'), the head of oncology at Pfizer UK, and a professor of molecular oncology from the Institute of Cancer Research, who was also a consultant medical oncologist, and the Professor who led the clinical trials. The latter said that "these drugs have allowed women to live a normal life for longer".

As usual, no-one from outside the conventional medical establishment was asked to comment. And on the Today programme, no questions were asked about the side effects of the drug. The Drug.com website has produced these for both palbociclib and for ribociclib, at least those currently accepted, these being drug used sparingly over a short period, and with very few patients. For palbociclib they include:

• body aches or pain
• ear congestion
• fever
• headache
• loss of voice
• painful or difficult urination
• swelling or inflammation of the mouth
• trouble breathing
• ulcers, sores, or white spots in the mouth
• unusual bleeding or bruising
• unusual tiredness or weakness
• Anxiety
• chest pain
• dizziness or lightheadedness
• fainting
• fast heartbeat
• sudden shortness of breath or troubled breathing

As usual, our mainstream media does not believe that patients are entitled to know about these. It is difficult to know how patients can make an 'informed choice' about whether to take these drugs, or other pharmaceutical drugs, without this knowledge. The only side effect mentioned was from the patient who had tried the drug "You get slight fatigue from it, but it was manageable..." was all she said, perhaps someone who had a better than normal experience of the drug, and perhaps someone put forward by the drug company for this very reason.

I would predict that in time the adverse drug reactions will be far worse that those already known. This has been the history of every pharmaceutical drug, and there is no reason to think that these drugs will be any different.

Breast cancer patients require treatment. And there is safer, and more effective treatment (providing a life expectancy gain far in excess of 10 months). It is homeopathy. I have written about it many times before, although this one was criticised for being 'anacdotal (something convention medicine does not do, of course)! First, cancer is often the end result, the 'side effects' of pharmaceutical drugs taken for other conditions. So to avoid cancer it is sensible to avoid these drugs. But in addition there is research evidence to confirm over 200 years of clinical outcomes, that homeopathy is an effective treatment for cancer. Yet the media is not interest, of course. So although Homeopathy might be able to provide effective treatment for cancer, including breast cancer, this is not considered to be a medical 'breakthrough', it is not considered to be 'life changing'.

But, of course, it is!

Conventional Medicine and the despair of patients? Avoid breast cancer by voluntary mastectomy?

Conventional medicine is failing, and failing badly.

Okay. Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are unsafe, and often downright dangerous. Given time, most pharmaceutical drugs are either withdrawn of banned as a result. They cause serious illness and disease. They kill 10s of 1000s of people every year.

Okay, Big Pharma drugs are ineffective, most of them quite useless. Recent studies have suggested that 85% of pharmaceutical drugs just don't work.

Okay. We know that a growing number of people are refusing to take them, most notably doctors and  nurses - yes, the very people who are willing to give them to us!

But how does this medical failure show up in the behaviour of patients?

• Apparently, Doctors are now agreeing to remove healthy breasts for women who fear getting breast cancer.
• Apparently, even one Miss America contestant will have both her breasts removed - even though she does not have cancer.

Conventional Medicine appears to operate in a continual state of panic. There is usually an annual panic about flu epidemics. Or the re-emergence of diseases, like Whooping Cough. But usually in this blog I have discounted these (and other 'panics') as a ploy by Big Pharma companies to sell their drugs and vaccines to us. However, it is becoming apparent that this is not the only consequence.

The willingness of healthy women to remove their breasts is a huge vote of 'no confidence' in the only medical system they know about - ConMed.

What does this mean? Contract breast cancer, and women have no confidence that ConMed will be able to help them. But worse, doctors who agree to this surgery must also agree with this assessment - that they have no effective or safe treatment for breast cancer. Otherwise they would surely refuse to contemplate such an horrendous violation of a woman's body.

* Moreover, as the articles above suggest, the risks of the operation are probably equal to the risk of contracting breast cancer - certainly more certain!

* And Homeopathy informs us that if a disease is treated by suppressing it, or removing the part involved in the disease, the disease is likely to emerge elsewhere.

Conventional Medicine, on the surface, appears very arrogant. They regularly inform us about new 'miracle' treatments, or 'wonder' cures. They tell us they are overcoming disease. They tell us we are all living longer because of the medication. They tell us that conventional medicine is the only 'science-based' medicine.

Yet, under the surface, there appears to be little confidence in their ability to treat disease. The regular panics about disease epidemics, the willingness of conventional medicine to perform unnecessary mastectomy operations, both suggest that the conventional medical establishment recognises, and acts on the basis, that it is short of safe and effective treatments for a variety of diseases.

Breast Implantation; where is the Medical Honesty?

What can we learn from this, the latest scandel arising within the world of ConMed? The issue of breast implantation has hit the headlines following news that French-made PIP implants were made with 'industrial' rather than 'medical' quality silicone, and that they rupture more easily than they should.

The main lesson, perhaps, is that it is difficult for patients to obtain the truth, or even full information, from the ConMed Establishment, and the governments and mainstream media who appear slavishly to support it.

The initial reaction of the UK government was that 'there was no problem'. Is there any more typical response to a medical scandal? Whenever there has been evidence that a Big Pharma drug, or a conventional medical procedure, might be dangerous, this is almost invariably the first response. "There is no evidence". "People should not be alarmed".

Within a matter of days, the UK government had changed its tone. Instead of a 1% failure rate, they had to admit that the failure rate was closer to 7-8%. It would appear that government was prepared to pour balm over health problems - even when it was not in possession of the full facts!

Indeed, there seems always to be a point at which the game of 'Russian Roulette' with our health becomes too dangerous - even for Government! As long as drugs, medical procedures, implants, etc., cause damage or death to just a small number, this appears to be acceptable. Beyond that point, however, they are forced to ask questions, slowly, tentatively, of course, whilst more 'reviews' are held!

Yet, this is perhaps nothing compared to the information given to the women who sought, and accepted these breast implants. Most of those who have spoken to the media tell a similar story - they were told that the silicone implants were safe, and rarely if ever ruptured. In the main, this procedure is carried out in private, for profit, clinics, who, of course, have a vested interest in providing women with such re-assurance. Whether these clinics are going to be as willing to accept responsibility now so many of these implants have, indeed, ruptured remains to be seen.

So was the information given to women honest? Did the clinics know that this manufacturer was not using medical-grade silicone? Probably not, as the French company selling them would have realised they would not have sold many had they done so. It was not in their interests to tell the clinics. So why did they use industrial-grade silicone? Was there no medical-grade silicone available? Or was it just because it was cheaper to do so, and so boosted company profits?

Anyway, it seems clear that private, for profit, health interests have dominated these medical procedures. The question is, has honest, full, transparent information for patients suffered as a result? There seems to be little doubt about this.

Moreover, there is little difference between this situation, and the ongoing sale of all ConMed drugs, and other medical procedures - as they are promoted by the National Health Service, and supported by Governments of all colours. In these health care matters, we, as patients, are dealing with enormously important, immensely influential, and frighteningly powerful private interests. And it would appear that profit is of central, over-riding importance. Our health, too often, appears to be a secondary consideration - regardless of whether we deal with private clinics, or the NHS, or indeed rely on Government and its agencies to tell us the truth about conventional medicine.

So perhaps the main lesson to be learnt is that we all have to be weary about what we are told about conventional medicine; that we need to question whether the information given to us is full, open and honest: or whether we are listening to the vested interests of a powerful medical establishment.