Current News | Introduction | Colloidal Silver | Chemtrails | Sylphs | Emerging Diseases | Forbidden Cures | Ozone | Immunity Boosting | Nutrition | Tone Gen By Bill Sturgeon<sturgeon@asis.com>
Breast Cancer Awareness Month is funded solely by the makers of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen. The National Surgical Adjutant Breast and Bowel Project has been represented as a flagship study that produced astonishing good results from Tamoxifen in "preventing breast cancer". In fact this massive scientific study, supported by both government and industry, was curtailed early so that the women in the control group could then also receive the benefit of this wonderful new preventive treatment instead of the ineffective "placebo" they would have otherwise received.. Credibility of study in question
World cancer expert, Samuel Epstein, M.D., writes in 1992, "The evidence
that Tamoxifen can prevent breast cancer is largely wishful thinking.
To make matters worse, the risks to healthy women of a wide range of serious
complications, including uterine cancer, fatal liver cancer, liver failure,
The World Health Organization formally designated Tamoxifen as a human carcinogen (cancer causing agent). C. Pierson, of National Woman's Health Network writes, "It doesn't make sense to use something that's listed as a carcinogen to try to prevent cancer." T. Bush, of Johns Hopkins University shares, "I'm questioning the philosophy of chemoprevention in healthy women using a toxic agent." Figures lie and liars figure
What then, is the cost? It is the exposure of all 100 women in the hypothetical population to greater risk of liver failure, liver cancer, eye problems, deadly blood clots, and to those women who still have a uterus, endometrial cancer. While I hate gloom and doom messages, the truth is that liver cancer takes about ten years to become noticed and some experts warn us of a forthcoming epidemic of liver deaths in women taking this drug today. But what is the cost of "one breast cancer saved" measured in dollars? In 1999, prophylactic Tamoxifen for 100 at-risk women for four years would cost $415,872 (based upon the quoted price of $86.64 for a patient's single month's supply). Add to that the treatment costs of exposing all 100 women in the hypothetical population to the additional uterine and liver cancer it is known to cause but they seldom tell you about. This single benefit would be obtained at the cost of nearly half a million dollars spent on Tamoxifen! This may be very lucrative for the Tamoxifen makers, but for the rest of us one must ask, "Is it worth it?". What is this drug about, creating corporate wealth or creating public health? You decide. How do we acknowledge the presence of cancer?
You undoubtedly have cancer cells in your body as you read this. In the process of cell replication constantly taking place in your body, some percentage of them, perhaps dozens each day, are bad copies, defective cells. These have all the earmarks of cancer cells since, left to their own devices, they would grow into a malignant tumor. However, your healthy immune system, just as routinely, seeks them out and takes care of them. When your cellular insults increase, and your immune system weakens beyond tolerance, one of these cells may prevail and become a malignant tumor and grow exponentially in size. This growth will continue for seven or eight years, on average, until the tumor is large enough to be noticed by palpating fingers or X-rays or thermogram. So a woman will carry a growing breast tumor long before it is first, noticed and second, diagnosed. Does a person with an unnoticed five year old malignant tumor "have cancer"? What if that tumor were so slow-growing that it never did get noticed before the person died of something else? Did she "have cancer"? Not according to the study's authors. To them, only diagnosed cancers were real. What of the tumors that failed to show up on schedule because Tamoxifen was taken which changed, evidently, their growth rate? Did the Tamoxifen destroy these breast tumors or just slow down their growth enough so that the five and six year old tumors didn't show up on schedule? After Tamoxfen is discontinued, do these slowed-down tumors once again increase their pace until of discoverable size? It undoubtedly buys some few women some time, but how many and how much? Does anybody know? How could they? Tamoxifen is too new to tell. Is there a healthier alternative to Tamoxifen?
Soy, being a natural product, cannot be patented. Estrogen is a big villain in breast cancer. It causes rapid cell growth and hence nudges cell behavior closer to the uncontrolled cell growth that we call cancer. Anything that reduces your exposure to estrogen will reduce your chances of developing breast cancer. With each monthly period, your cells are exposed to estrogen as your body prepares for possible motherhood. That which reduces your life-time number of menstrual periods will reduce your chances: many pregnancies, longer breast feeding, early menopause, etc. Another strategy for reducing estrogen exposure is to tie up your body's estrogen delivery system. Estrogen, free flowing in your blood, connects to your tissue physically not unlike a key in a lock. When a key occupies the lock, another key cannot occupy the same space. An estrogen receptor (the lock) connects with estrogen (the key) and it enters your system. If an estrogen receptor binder, such as Tamoxifen, or soy component is already in the lock, you are healthier than if an estrogen molecule were there. However, some claim that consumption of tofu and bean curd as a substitute for meat and dairy products puts one at risk of severe mineral deficiencies. Tamoxifen costs United States women ten times more than Canadian women
spend. If you should go this route, you might consider taking your
next vacation in Canada! The American Cancer Society lists undesirable
side effects of Tamoxifen, but makes no mention of the life-threatening
ones such as liver cancer or uterine cancer. I view this as fraudulent.
Clearly, we need to champion more research effort into breast cancer prevention.
If you agree, please let your elected representative in government know
how you feel about it.
Bill Sturgeon is a medical science writer and medical device manufacturer
who lives in Petrolia. Way back in 1958, Bill lost both his wife
and only child to cancer. Since then, he has closely watched the appallingly
inadequate performance, after spending billions of dollars, of our national
cancer industry. This mainly consists of the National Cancer Institute
and the American Cancer Society which dedicates only 1% of its income toward
cancer prevention efforts. If you have feedback please direct it
to him at sturgeon@asis.com, or 707.629.3434
|