Tamoxifen Reported to Cause Aggressive Cancer Tumors

[Guest guest]

Another medical " miracle " . . .

Tamoxifen Reported to Cause Aggressive Cancer Tumors

The cancer prevention drug, tamoxifen, may cause cancer. It has been

reported that rare cancers are being found in long-term users. Tamoxifen

is the drug of choice, prescribed after breast cancer detection or

surgery. Its use is deemed to...

http://www.naturalnews.com/026931_cancer_Tamoxifen_brst_cancer.html

[Guest guest]

Once again, we see someone has manipulated stats to meet their own needs. I'm

not a fan of Tamoxifen, but what cancer patients need is true fact, not people

skewing things to fit their agenda.

Here's another side to the story:

http://www.cancer.org/aspx/blog/Comments.aspx?id=319

I found the article above to be very well balanced. It basically says, this is

not new news, but it isn't exactly correct, either.

I can do without sensationalism, . And there is nothing like telling

women that they are now going to die even quicker because they took the gold

standard of treatment. Do you all forget that we have people with actual cancer

in this group?

Remember, don't believe everything you read.

Me? I won't take Tamoxifen, but I still don't want twisted information out

there.

ar

>

> Another medical " miracle " . . .

>

> Tamoxifen Reported to Cause Aggressive Cancer Tumors

> The cancer prevention drug, tamoxifen, may cause cancer. It has been

> reported that rare cancers are being found in long-term users. Tamoxifen

> is the drug of choice, prescribed after breast cancer detection or

> surgery. Its use is deemed to...

> http://www.naturalnews.com/026931_cancer_Tamoxifen_brst_cancer.html

>

[Guest guest]

From: " Carolyn Bormann, N.D. " <cbormann@...>

cures for cancer

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:19:41 -0700

Subject: Re: [cures for cancer] Tamoxifen Dangers / Reply by Dr.B

I agree that information needs to at least attempt to be balanced. We've long

known that the original studies stated that they know it causes endometrial and

ovarian cancers I believe. No surprise here.

I don't know if whole matrix pacific yew does the same thing...natural products

frequently have mitigating compounds which are protective versus the arrogant

man-made extracts that chemical companies come up with... Anything can have

toxic effects if the subconscious mind/ belief is not on board anyway...each

patient is unique and so their approach must change and adapt to their changing

biochemistry, etc.

For those on this list who I usually see every Fall at CCS, I've been asked to

give the info. out here. Yes, I'll be working a booth at Cancer Control Society

conference at the Universal City Sheraton in Hollywood on Labor Day weekend.

Sept. 5-7

I'm sharing a corner booth with " SGS Research " and it is in the main ballroom as

you come into the room. Not sure the #. This is the largest Integrative Cancer

& Chronic Disease conference in the country. Doctors from all over the world

come and lecture...Israel, France, Italy, S.America, Mexico, Germany, US, etc.

It's " Medical Tourism " at at work for more than 30 years !

Here's the website for more info.

http://www.cancercontrolsociety.com/meeting2009.htm

Hollywood Hotels: Sheraton Universal Hotel at Universal Studios Hollywood

sheraton.com

http://www.starwoodhotels.com/sheraton/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=8\

3

COME SAY HI IF YOU'RE ATTENDING. I'll be there Sat - Mon.

Carolyn Borman, N.D.,C.M.H.T.

US Director / Patient Coordinator

Europa Institute of Integrated Medicine

Int'l. Borderzone / Tijuana/San Diego

EUROPA CLINIC INFO.

Owner/Director

Arrowhead Healthworks

Arrowhead Healthworks Home Page

909-338-3533

****************

>

> Once again, we see someone has manipulated stats to meet their own needs. I'm

not a fan of Tamoxifen, but what cancer patients need is true fact, not people

skewing things to fit their agenda.

>

> Here's another side to the story:

>

> http://www.cancer.org/aspx/blog/Comments.aspx?id=319

>

> I found the article above to be very well balanced. It basically says, this

is not new news, but it isn't exactly correct, either.

>

> I can do without sensationalism, . And there is nothing like telling

women that they are now going to die even quicker because they took the gold

standard of treatment. Do you all forget that we have people with actual cancer

in this group?

>

> Remember, don't believe everything you read.

>

> Me? I won't take Tamoxifen, but I still don't want twisted information out

there.

>

> ar

[Guest guest]

>

> Once again, we see someone has manipulated stats to meet their own

> needs. I'm not a fan of Tamoxifen, but what cancer patients need is

> true fact, not people skewing things to fit their agenda.

>

> Here's another side to the story:

>

> http://www.cancer.org/aspx/blog/Comments.aspx?id=319

In that blog article you linked they say: " The study is fine, and the

results are what the results are. "

Where is the manipulation of stats? Lets not forget when they promote

cancer drugs and conventional therapies they manipulate the stats to no

end, and doctors often don't explain the stats properly, which makes

matters worse.

If one is trying to make a decision about whether to take Tamoxifen or

go a different path, how is one to do this without this kind of

information?

> I found the article above to be very well balanced. It basically

says,

> this is not new news, but it isn't exactly correct, either.

Whether or not it's new or not doesn't matter. Old news is quickly

forgotten. And studies need to be repeated to confirm previous findings.

This is normally considered important. They always like to say " More

research is needed " which basically means, lets ignore the results. So

they never actually find out anything. Particularly with promising

non-toxic alternative therapies, this is discouraging, and what they

want, and it's the reason why CAM research takes 10-15 years or more to

come into use.

Anyway, getting back to the original article they do say " This report

follows previously published findings by Dr. Li in 2001, in which the

same findings were reported. "

They also say in the original article: " Some suggest that the risks

still outweigh the downside, because tamoxifen is so successful at

preventing a recurrence of common breast tumors. " So they did include

all sides of the story. How is the original article not balanced? Maybe

it's just that they don't conclude by still recommending people

continue taking Tamoxifen.

> I can do without sensationalism, . And there is nothing like

> telling women that they are now going to die even quicker because

> they took the gold standard of treatment. Do you all forget that we

> have people with actual cancer in this group?

They didn't say women are going to die even quicker. They just said you

have a higher chance to get a more aggressive ER- cancer. In another

article they write:

Exactly why the tamoxifen boosts the risk of ER-negative second cancers

is not known, but Li said it could be that prolonged tamoxifen use

provides " a competitive advantage for the growth of ER-negative breast

cancer cells. "

That's basic evolutionary biology. The same thing happens with insects

when you spray them with highly " effective " chemicals like DDT. Some

survive because they have different genetics and are lucky enough to be

resistant, and so the chemical doesn't work on them. If you keep

spraying with DDT everywhere, which was happening because it was so

" effective " you create a competitive advantage to the insects with

resistance, and pretty soon, all the insects in that area are

resistance. The more you keep spraying with the DDT, the more the

resistance insect population builds up.

> Remember, don't believe everything you read.

>

> Me? I won't take Tamoxifen, but I still don't want twisted

information

> out there.

I'm wondering, did you consider this sort of information when you made

the decision not to take Tamoxifen?

I haven't really looked into Tamoxifen at all because my wife has

triple neg bc, but I do believe I read that Tamoxifen has other

significant side effects, right? Maybe that's why you chose not to use

it or what?

You should keep in mind that Cancercured is an Alternative Cancer

Treatment group, not really a *Complementary* Medicine group, so many

people are trying to avoid using conventional drugs and therapies.

Unless we know why we don't want to use them, thanks to these kinds of

studies, what's the reason to make so much effort to choose alternative

therapies? Maybe we should all be using conventional medicine, because

it is very effective and doesn't do what the studies are reporting...

Obviously for those doing *Complementary* Medicine, they are doing this

because they know of the side effects of conventional medicine,

including Tamoxifen, so they also need to consider this information,

hopefully without emotion, to decide their strategy either with or

without their doctors support.

If I were on Tamoxifen, I would be using this information to decide

whether or not staying on this drug longer-term was a good idea, and

think about other options.

Why don't you tell us about why you chose not to use Tamoxifen for

yourself. This might be helpful to those with ER+ bc trying to make a

decision.

Peace.

[Guest guest]

Hi Algarve7,

My problem is with the sensationalism used to sway people away from using

certain medications or treatments. Stick around the group for a little while

longer and perhaps you will see what I am talking about.

First, I'm sorry your wife is triple negative. There are so few options for

triple negative women. What have you guys decided to do up to now?

I chose to stay away from Tamoxifen because it didn't make sense. Why would I

take something with such horrible side effects? My mother died of a gyn cancer,

so I certainly am not going to take something that might trigger some genetic

monster in my body. I would rather balance my hormones. However, I was stage

0, which meant I had room to play around. If I were stage 3 or 4, I'm not sure

what I would have chosen.

Many women, however, find the risks are perfectly acceptable if it means they

get five more years of cancer-free life. I actually don't understand that

mindset, but it is their choice. We discuss these problems with tamoxifen in

the other group I belong to, and the vast majority of the women on tamoxifen are

fine with it because they believe it will save their lives. They all know I

turned it down and why. But there is nothing else to offer them because there

have been no studies on anything else. It is difficult to argue the point about

tamox if I can't compare it to the studies on Calcium D-Glucarate.

Yes, this group is for discussion of alternatives. However, many here are

looking for complimentary treatments as well. Not everything that comes from

traditional treatment is bad. Personally, I wouldn't place all my money on one

way of thought or treatment. I believe in a combination of methods. There are

many people who belong to the group who do not post publically. But I have

emailed with many of them. Some said they are afraid to post because they used

traditional treatment and they don't want people arguing with them about their

choices.

I know people manipulate stats to fit their needs, that's why I just want the

facts in order to make my decisions. And that's with both traditional and

alternative treatments. I do not believe the alternative world is as truthful

as it should be, either.

ar