Re: [vaccinedangers] OT but very important!! Breast cancer screening study suggests some tumours may cure themselves

November 25, 2008

AMEN!

What have I said all along? Cancers can come and

go. If you are tested at a time when it is

present and follow through, what trauma

What if it will go in a few weeks?

Thank you

Sher

At 07:08 PM 11/24/2008, you wrote:

>

>What Doctor's Don't Tell You published a lead

>article on this topic at least four years ago -

>but as always the orthodoxy take so long to

>catch up!! Iirc, their article suggested that

>around 80% of DCIS tumours would self-heal

>without interference.... If this is true, how

>many women have sacrificed their breasts needlessly....?

>

><http://www.wddty.com/03363800372508642313/cancer-when-it-isn-t-a-killer-dcis-p\

recancer-benign-cancer-or-what.html>http://www.wddty.com/03363800372508642313/ca\

ncer-when-it-isn-t-a-killer-dcis-precancer-benign-cancer-or-what.html

>http://www.wddty.com/03363800370428892600/when-it-s-not-cancer-at-all.html

><http://www.wddty.com/03363800372156234904/when-it-isn-t-a-killer.html>http://w\

ww.wddty.com/03363800372156234904/when-it-isn-t-a-killer.html

>http://www.wddty.com/03363800369973073994/breast-cancer-and-now-the-good-news.h\

tml

>

>And there's a lot more for anyone wanting to spend some time browsing...

>

>Sue x

>

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

------------------------

>

><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3512316/Breast-cancer-screening-s\

tudy-suggests-some-tumours-may-cure-themselves.html>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/h\

ealth/healthnews/3512316/Breast-cancer-screening-study-suggests-some-tumours-may\

-cure-themselves.html

>

>Breast cancer screening study suggests some tumours may cure themselves

>

>Screening women for breast cancer may lead to

>unnecessary treatment as some cancers will

>disappear on their own, researchers have suggested.

>

>By , Medical Editor

>Last Updated: 8:21PM GMT 24 Nov 2008

>

>Doctors found more cancers amongst women who

>were screened every two years compared to those

>screened once in six years, raising the

>possibility that some cancers vanish on their own.

>

>This means that some women are going through

>painful and upsetting treatment, often involving

>surgery and chemotherapy, for a cancer that

>would have gone away on it own had it not been detected.

>

>The study was carried out using data from

>120,000 women who were screened three times

>between 1996 and 2001 and compared the number of

>cancers detected to those found in 110,000 women

>of the same age who were screened once in six years.

>

>After taking account of various factors that

>could influence rates of breast cancer, they

>found the rate of breast cancer in the

>frequently-screened group remained 22 per cent higher.

>

>Of every 100,000 screened women, 1,909 had

>breast cancer during the six-year period,

>compared with 1,564 of every 100,000 in the

>control group. Screened women were more likely

>to have breast cancer at every age.

>

>The study is published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

>

>Author Dr Per-Henrik Zahl, of the Norwegian

>Institute of Public Health, Oslo, wrote:

> " Because the cumulative incidence among controls

>never reached that of the screened group, it

>appears that some breast cancers detected by

>repeated mammographic screening would not

>persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years.

>

> " This raises the possibility that the natural

>course of some screen-detected invasive breast

>cancers is to spontaneously regress.

>

> " Although many clinicians may be sceptical of

>the idea, the excess incidence associated with

>repeated mammography demands that spontaneous

>regression be considered carefully.

>

> " Spontaneous regression of invasive breast

>cancer has been reported, with a recent

>literature review identifying 32 reported cases.

>This is a relatively small number given such a

>common disease. However, as some observers have

>pointed out, the fact that documented

>observations are rare does not mean that

>regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect

>the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed

>to follow their natural course. "

>

>Dr Zahl said the findings do not dispute that

>breast screening saves lives. He wrote:

> " Instead, our findings simply provide new

>insight on what is arguably the major harm

>associated with mammographic screening, namely,

>the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress. "

>

>In an accompanying commentary Dr Kaplan,

>of the University of California, Los Angeles,

>and Dr Franz Porzsolt, of Clincal Economics

>University of Ulm, Germany, said the study is

>not perfect but it has been well conducted and

>raises issues that need further investigation.

>

>They said tumours that cause the patient no ill

>health is well known in prostate and other

>cancers and it is known that some women die with

>a breast cancer tumour but were never diagnosed

>and did not die from the disease.

>

>They wrote: " Despite the appeal of early

>detection of breast cancer, uncertainty about

>the value of mammography continues.

>

> " Perhaps the most important concern raised by

>the study by Zahl et al is that it highlights

>how surprisingly little we know about what

>happens to untreated patients with breast cancer. "

>

>In the UK women aged between 50 and 70 are

>invited for screening every three years at an annual cost of £75m in England.

>

>It was set up in 1988 and so far 19m women have

>been screened and 117,000 cancers detected.

>

>Each year around 45,500 women are diganosed with

>breast cancer along with 300 men. Around 12,300

>women and 70 men die from breast cancer each year.

>

> Winder, Deputy Director of the NHS

>Cancer Screening Programmes said: “In 2002 the

>World Health Organisation’s International Agency

>for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that

>mammography screening for breast cancer reduces mortality.

>

>“The UK experience is that long intervals

>between screenings are characterised by large

>numbers of symptomatic cancers, bigger tumours

>and poorer survival rates. Very early breast

>cancer that is still at 'in situ’ stage

>sometimes remains harmless however, in around

>50% of cases it can progress rapidly over a year

>or so and develop into a highly aggressive cancer.

>

>“To help women make an informed choice about

>whether or not to come for breast screening, all

>eligible women now receive a leaflet, 'Breast

>Screening-THE FACTS’ with their invitation. The

>leaflet explains the benefits and limitations of breast screening.”

><http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109094 & rui=95596047>

>FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!

>

>--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

>You received this message because you are

>subscribed to the Google Groups " Vaccine Dangers " group.

>To post to this group, send email to vaccinedangersgooglegroups

>

November 25, 2008

I recently had a sore come up on my arm that I was concerned about. It was like

a small mole that appeared suddenly, and was very painfull when knocked or

scratched. I have recently picked up some work that involves all day exposure

to the hot sun with absolutely no shade, so this also concerned me. Anyway,

after my first day it seems to have vanished. I can't even see where it was

now. It had been there for at least a month beforehand. I live in the tropics,

where it is considered the worst for skin cancer.

This may sound a bit far fetched to some. But I honestly believe we can " think "

ourselves into being sick. And we can also " think " ourselves into wellness.

The mind is a very powerfull tool. Of course we have to live healthy too. But

if we go around worrying about getting sick all the time, then chances are, we

will.

Fieldman

Re: [vaccinedangers] OT but very important!! Breast

cancer screening study suggests some tumours may cure themselves