Find out why the government is promoting...
The deadliest “cure” for cancer
If you knew getting screened for cancer could kill you, would you get screened anyway?
It’s not a trick question. It’s one you should ask yourself before your next mammogram, PSA, or lung cancer screening.
I’ve been speaking out against common cancer screening tests for decades, but until recently, I’ve been a lone voice in the wilderness. Now, more and more doctors are wising up to the screening charade. One of them has even been making waves at USA Today.
In his USA Today blog, primary care doctor Kevin Pho hit the nail on the head when he said, “For every inspiring story of a person cured from cancer made possible by early detection, there are untold stories of many more who suffer from the side effects of unnecessary invasive procedures stemming from false positive test results.”
Pho went on to say, “Early screening tests are not always in the patient’s best interest. As much as we’d like to believe that early detection automatically leads to better care, that is not always the case. There cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach.”
But the government does everything on a one-size-fits-all basis—which is why the Obama administration is ready to throw billions of taxpayer dollars into preventive care and early detection programs. What a waste of time and money.
Many doctors will tell you that screenings for early detecion will save lives and money. (I won’t venture to guess which is more important to them...) But as you’ll quickly see, just the opposite is true. Routine screenings open a Pandora’s box that, in the end, could prove more costly than anyone ever imagined.
The best way to prevent cancer
In theory, getting screened for cancer makes perfect sense. If you find the cancer early enough, you can zap the sucker before it can do any damage. The hope is that it will increase your chances of living to a ripe old age.
I wish that were the case. But the fact is...
No good evidence proves that cancer screenings will prolong your life
There is evidence to suggest, however, that today’s doctors are coerced into ordering otherwise needless cancer screenings. With demanding patients, malpractice threats, managed care dictates, and financial incentives, even if a doctor did want to put up a fight against ordering these tests, it would be a losing battle.
But let’s look at the facts. Even with hordes of Americans flocking to their doctors to get annual cancer tests, it’s obvious that we’re still losing the war on cancer. That’s because early screening is NOT the answer. In fact, if these tests contribute to anything, it’s to the spread of cancer—not to its cure.
Cancer screenings are pushed on the public like gospel truth, and the “pushers” would like you to believe that the benefits are clear and unquestionable. That just isn’t the case. Of course, when you tell that to people, they look at you like you have two heads. Clearly, the spin doctors have earned their keep.
If you don’t believe me, let’s take a look at a typical scenario. It would go something like this:
You wake up one morning feeling perfectly fine. But you see a commercial on TV insisting that you get a routine test for breast cancer—it could, after all, save your life. You don’t want to die anytime soon, so you make the appointment. You go to your appointment, and you get the diagnosis that could literally change your life forever:
The technician detects a mass.
She’s not sure if it’s anything to worry about or not, so she orders a biopsy. You then make another appointment, at which time the doctor sticks a tiny needle in the mass to determine if it’s anything you should worry about or not. But in doing so, little bits of the tumor break off, enter your bloodstream, and begin to circulate to other areas of your body.
Before you know it, you’ve had both breasts removed (the mass was only in one breast, but you never can be too careful...), you’ve had numerous reconstructive surgeries, your self-confidence is shattered, and you live in fear that the cancer will return.
And chances are, your cancer will return.
Remember, the biopsy spread the cancer through your body. In a few years, it will show up as lung cancer. Everyone will point an accusing finger at secondhand smoke, and no one will have any idea that the REAL culprit was a tiny needle that you PAID someone to stick into a mass you never would have known existed were it not for a cancer screening that was supposed to save your life.
In cases like these (and they’re more prevalent than you know), the best way to prevent cancer is to NOT GET SCREENED to begin with.
Why early detection doesn’t work
By the time you reach a certain age, chances are pretty good that you’ll have a cancer growing somewhere in your body. But chances are even better that it will never lead to any adverse symptoms—and it’s certainly not going to kill you. Most people are able to coexist with the cancer without ever knowing it’s there.
But as technology gets more and more sophisticated, doctors are able to detect these tiny tumors just about anywhere in your body. The question becomes this: Should you treat them or leave them alone?
The issue is that not all cancers are created equal. The more aggressive ones are the deadliest. They’re fast-growing, and they can sucker punch you before you have a chance to defend yourself.
On the other hand, slow-growing tumors are less likely to kill you, whether you find them early or not. Yet in the majority of cases, it’s these slow-growing tumors that show up in routine cancer tests.
Andrew Berchuck, a scientist from the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, found this to be the case when he conducted a study on ovarian cancer. When he examined the gene-expression profiles of 166 ovarian cancers, he found that 98 percent of the cancers detected at an early stage were cancers that would have had long-term survival rates regardless of treatment.
Berchuck said, “To save lives, we have to detect aggressive cancers, but early detection seems to preferentially find ones that are inherently less life-threatening.” Berchuck went on to say that when it comes to the difference between fast- and slow-growing cancers...
“What you tend to find with screening is the cancer equivalent of a cold virus, not HIV.”
When you put it those terms, it’s not as difficult to see what we’re dealing with. It’s those “common-cold-type” cancers that are leading to thousands of unnecessary surgeries and other harmful procedures, such as chemo and radiation.
Leave it to our “highly advanced” medical establishment to try to treat cancer with something that has been clearly shown to be carcinogenic itself. Research presented by the National Research Council Advisory Committee on the biological effects of ionizing radiation revealed that every time a premenopausal woman is exposed to radiation during an annual screening, she increases her cancer risk by 1 percent. Multiply that by a decade or more of annual screenings, and you can see how this so-called preventive treatment is a ticking time bomb.
Studies like that are especially maddening when you realize that, if left alone...
Many cancers will disappear all on their own
In Cancer and Your Immune System, Dr. Michael Greenough said, “At any given time, everyone has within them between 100 to 10,000 cancer cells. Under normal conditions, when the immune system is strong, these cells are destroyed.”
Need more proof? A report that was published last November in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggested that as many as 25 percent of breast cancers will go away on their own if they’re not treated. This certainly presents a case for skipping routine screenings—or, at the very least, “watchful waiting” if a tumor is detected.
Donald A. Berry, chairman of the department of biostatics at M.D. Anderson Center in Houston, said, “It is possible that all of us host cancerous cells that grow some before the body disposes of them. What then, would be the consequence? Prophylactic [preventive] removal of organs in the masses? That’s a scary thought.”
Once again, the main problem is that these cancer screenings stop short of determining just how lethal a certain cancer is—or, more importantly, is NOT.
Barnett Kramer of the National Institutes of Health said, “You may pick up tumors that can be cured, but which never needed to be treated in the first place...This is why it is almost impossible for screening and early detection to make a difference.”
So what should you do?
When it comes right down to it, you should be concerned about preventing cancer—not finding it early.
With all of the potential risks—compounded by the lack of evidence showing their benefits—it’s clear that these screenings should not be given willy-nilly to perfectly healthy people who have no symptoms whatsoever.
That’s not to say that no one should ever get screened for cancer. My point is that doctors should base that decision on each individual patient—factoring in things such as lifestyle, family history, and your own medical history.
In the meantime, the best way to prevent disease and improve your health is to make smart food choices. Do that, and you’ll drastically reduce your chances of getting any major disease—including cancer.
That may sound too simple to be true, but being healthy was never meant to be complicated. Of course, the problem is, if you ask 10 different people for a definition of “proper diet,” you’ll get 10 different answers. And chances are, most of them will be way off base. But that’s what I’m here for. If you want to find out the best—and easiest—way to eat for good health, reread last month’s issue of The Douglass Report.