Author Topic: Breast Cancer : Myth and Matricide  (Read 579 times)


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Breast Cancer : Myth and Matricide
« on: August 08, 2007, 02:28:10 PM »


In the year 2006, in the UK, the medical orthodoxy diagnosed around 42,000 cases of breast cancer. Approximately 13,000 women, who had been previously diagnosed with the condition, died in that year.
Breast cancer is a whole body, systemic, constitutional disease, involving a tumour which has the ability to metastasise. This is not the spreading of the cancer to previously healthy tissue, elsewhere in the body. The cancer is already established before the breast tumour appears : metastasis is possible only in the patient who has genuine, ie. whole body, cancer.

In 1969, the leading US cancer statistician, Prof. H B Jones (1) told the American Cancer Society, (2)
“Beginning in 1940, through redefinition of terms, various grades of malignancy were classed as cancer. After that date, the proportion of “cancer” cures having “normal” life-expectancy increased rapidly, corresponding to the fraction of questionable diagnosis included.”

According to Dr Irwin Bross PhD (3) –
"If you are a woman who has been diagnosed as 'early breast cancer'...there is one simple scientific fact that you need to know...more than half the time the pathologist is wrong - it is not actually breast cancer. Chances are this tumour lacks the ability to metastasize...the hallmark of a genuine cancer...
The world's first controlled trial of adjuvant therapies for breast cancer was centralised in my department...Dr Leslie Blumenson and I...made a surprising discovery. More than half of the patients...had tumours...that were more like benign lesions.

Our discovery was highly unpopular with the medical profession. … Admitting the truth could lead to malpractice suits by women who had lost a breast because of an incorrect medical diagnosis. The furious doctors at the National Cancer Institute...took our highly successful breast cancer research program away from us...they eventually succeeded in suppressing our findings and blocking new publications...." …more than half the time ..” : a conservative figure .
One breast oncologist stated, on television “80% of my patients do not return for further treatment.” a declaration which demands analysis.
As there is no correlation between tumour removal/reduction with surgery/dugs/radiation and patient survival ie. the successful treatment of cancer is not possible through orthodox methods, it has to be assumed that the 80% went away and died without further treatment or switched to the herbal/nutritional route or were misdiagnosed.
The first option is highly unlikely : the second unlikely but possible. If we give a generous combined proportion of 10% to these two categories we are left with a 70% misdiagnosis rate : 42,000 minus 13,000 equals 29,000 ie 70% of the number diagnosed.
It would strongly appear that, for the woman who has genuine breast cancer and who chooses the orthodox package, incidence rate equals death-rate, Divine Intervention excepted.

In 1975, Prof H B Jones (1) announced -
"It is utter nonsense to claim that catching cancer symptoms early enough will increase the patient's chances of survival … If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery ; other than when used in immediate life-threatening situation. ... ..
With every cancer patient who keeps in excellent physical shape .., there’s a high chance that the body will find its own defence against the cancer. He may have many good years left in good health. He shouldn’t squander them by being made into a hopeless invalid through radical medical intervention which has zero chance of extending his life.”

According to Sainsbury, Johnston, Haward. - Lancet 1999 353 p1132. "Patients who presented early and were treated in less than 30 days had significantly worse outcomes... the drive for all women with possible breast cancer to be seen within 14 days ... is not supported by this study."

By 1989 four random-controlled mammography trials had taken place : in the USA , UK and two in Sweden. In the final, and most sophisticated, trial, in Malmo, it was found that for one woman to have a cancer avoided or delayed it would need 68,000 women to be screened. (4) Such a figure is completely meaningless.
The largest ever trial of mass breast cancer screening was the Canadian National Breast Screening Study directed by Prof. Anthony Miller, involving 50,000 women aged 40 to 49 who were tracked from 1980 to 1988. Half of the women were given X-ray screening every year or 18 months and half were given just a physical examination. Within the X-rayed group the cancer death-rate was "significantly higher”.

As breast cancer is not localized the notion that the removal of the breasts, as a preventative or treatment, could be beneficial has no evidential basis. Mastectomy is never anything other than grievous bodily harm.

In a Swedish study involving 10 million people over a 70-year period it was found that breast cancer is around 70% environmental : a conclusion not given much national media coverage as it put the spotlight on the polluting industries.(5)
In an analysis of 52 studies involving over 160,000 women concluded “Women with a family history of breast cancer are unlikely to develop breast cancer themselves and even less likely to die from it.” (6)
“Breast-cancer patients carrying two well-known genes linked to the disease have the same survival chances as non-carriers of the genes who develop the disease, according to a study by Israeli and Canadian researchers. .. The study of 1,545 breast-cancer patients found 10-year survival rates of 49% for women carrying BRCA1, 48% for carriers of BRCA2 and 51% for non-carriers, including deaths from other causes. The slight differences weren't statistically significant…. the finding gives women who know they have the mutation and their doctors another factor to consider as they ponder such precautionary measures as prophylactic surgery before the onset of the disease.” (7) Too late for some.

Medical malpractice is defined as " ..improper or injurious or surgical treatment through carelessness, ignorance or intent..." further, "..a more serious criminal lack of care arising from deliberate disregard for the care and safety of other persons constitutes manslaughter." (8)

“CANCER RESEARCH “ : the failure is deliberate before they started trading as "Cancer Research UK" the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign had around 170 years of fundraising between them . When they started, cancer was a rare disease : now it is out-of-control : 40% - and rising - of the UK population have, or will develop cancer : a rate expected to rise by 50% by 2020. CRUK are collecting over 400,000,000 - and rising - per year. None of which will be spent on research into safe, effective treatments. CRUK will not fund any research which is a threat to The Cancer Business.


The Houston/Null Analysis.
Increasing numbers of non-mushroom women (those not happy kept in the dark and fed manure) have taken charge of their own destinies and have recorded their experiences with safe, effective, curative breast cancer treatments.
One, a professor of geochemistry, successfully treated herself, through the elimination of dairy produce : standard holistic cancer therapy advice.
"Breakthrough Breast Cancer" called this regime "worrying". Breakthrough was founded as a fund-raiser for another tentacle of the cancer syndicate, The Institute of Cancer Research and is funded by the drugs industry, including Zeneca, makers of tamoxifen. In return, they provide access, for the drug boys, to The All Party Parliamentary Group on Breast Cancer.

Understandably, non-drug approaches to cancer and prevention are not part of Breakthrough's ideas on the disease : screening and scalpel/drug/radiation treatments are the way forward : none of this alternative nonsense. Nutritional cures are definitely "worrying" : also very worrying, to Breakthrough and the rest of the cancer gang, is the chance that UK women might discover that the main difference between the rural Chinese woman who has a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing breast cancer and the British woman , who has a 1 in 10 chance, is dairy produce in the diet.

+The All Party MPs have not, as yet, been able to see through Breakthrough.
In the 1920s Dr Otto Warburg carried out a great deal of work on cancer’s basic mechanism, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1932. Warburg’s work clearly demonstrated that cancer is, fundamentally, a relatively simple disease where cell oxygen levels fall to a level sufficiently low enough for the cell to change in nature. Cancer, as described by Warburg, is defined as a condition where the respiration of oxygen in the normal cell is replaced by the fermentation of glucose. Today, as planetary oxygen levels fall and pollution increasingly drives oxygen from the cell, cancer rates continually increase. Cancer, like viruses needs anaerobic conditions : this has given rise to the dangerous myth that viruses are the cause of cancer : whereas they are simply partners in the air-less gloom.

In 1966, after his efforts had been, largely, ignored by the cancer industry for over thirty years, he addressed a group of fellow Nobel Laureates, reiterating his views and concluded ..
“ .. nobody today can say that one does not know what cancer and its prime cause be. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause is better known., … how long prevention will be avoided depends on how long the prophets of agnosticism will succeed in inhibiting the application of scientific knowledge in the cancer field. In the meantime, millions … must die of cancer unnecessarily.” (9)

It needs emphasising that this was in 1966, referring to research that was considered scientifically sound enough to achieve a Nobel Prize in the early 1930s : knowledge that has now been available for over 70 years. Dr Warburg’s work has never been refuted : just avoided. As the cause has been known so has the correct treatment. Enlightened practitioners have always successfully treated cancer victims using direct oxygen therapy and/or a regime of raw, organic, vegan, alkalising, oxygenating nutrition.
As a substitute for sensible, patient-centred therapies, working with body’s inherent healing ability, early detection has become the obsession ; the tabernacle on the altar of orthodox breast cancer management with mammography as the sacrament. The catch-it-early-and-modern-therapy-will-save-you mantra is fed to all women without any evidence-based reality to sustain it.

Misdiagnosis and the subsequent mutilating surgery, drugs and radiation are carried out to satisfy the decrees of The Great God of Consensus Medicine : a very jealous Deity whose two main demands are that the practices of His High Priests are never subject to question and, equally important, that the medical bureaucracy are not placed in any position whereby they could face litigation. In practice this means, just-in-case diagnoses, multiple X-rays, anti-biotics in excessive doses, a huge incidence of totally unnecessary surgery .. and the rest of it ; irrespective of the effect on the patient.

The patient who is wrongly diagnosed is more likely to survive the treatment and is recorded as a "cancer cure". The patient who has cancer is usually killed by the treatment and recorded as having "died of cancer". The misdiagnosed are left minus one or two breasts, damaged by drugs and radiation, constantly worried that the “cancer” might “return” and more likely to develop the disease, in the future, from the effects of the treatment.

The periodic parading, in the press or on television, of some - preferably famous - woman whose imaginary cancer has been "cured" encourages ever more lemmings to rush forward for the physical/radioactive assault of mammography. It also convinces the real cancer sufferer to go down the same treatment route. The patient is then subjected to a regime diametrically opposed to that needed for survival, with the inevitable fatal result.

Pat Rattigan Patrick Rattigan N.D August 07 [email protected]

Refs 1. Dept of Physics & Physiology. Univ. of Ca., Bekeley 2. Report on Cancer ACS 11th annual Science Writers Conference, New Orleans Mar 7 1969. 3. Former director of statistics, Roswell Pk Memorial. 4. Mass mammography Skrabanek P. Univ. of Dublin. 5. Dr P Mansfield Ecologist July 2002. 6. Dr V Beal ICRF Lancet 2001; 358 : 1389-1399. 7. Periera J Wall St Journal online July 12 2007 8. Dr B A Richards Topic of Cancer Pergamon Press 1982 9. June 30, 1966 at Lindau, Lake Constance, Germany