Re: joe - Mammograms-information- 100%

[Guest guest]

Look at it again: I asked the Urologist, 'Do you know what the percentage is

for people getting cancer from the seeding of cancer cells because of a biopsy'?

He looked at me waiting for my answer which was, " 100%.....for the poor soul

that gets cancer from the seeding of cancer cells " .

It pertains to all of these dangers that 'they' claim are remote. Perhaps it

is a small percentage just as it is a small percentage getting cancer from

certain scans or even from Mammograms. What happens when you or me happen to

be one of those small percents? Is it now okay? Heck, you're only one of the

one percent. Thanks, but no thanks.

It was just a play on words that I sometimes use to get a point across and I

suppose can be confusing. Sorry. As usual, it all boils down to the

decisions, decisions, decisions dilemma we face.

Nobody, under any circumstances should not get a Mammogram because of what I

wrote. Establish whether or not what I said has validity and make your

decisions based upon information, not an e-mail.

Read the following statement:

" Mammography Does Not Predict Cure

Before a breast malignancy becomes detectable by mammography it has typically

been present for 8 years. "

I cannot verify this statement which was made by a well-known Medical

Information Researcher and the report containing this can be read at:

http://www.breasthealthproject.com/mammograms2.htm

The person writing the report is good at what he does however he also provides a

free newsletter and also 'sells' report so it is obvious he must often make his

information a bit 'sensational', even 'scary' and common sense tell us why. It

doesn't negate what is written however, and this particular article stuck in my

mind because of its implications. One very important thing one can learn from

this article is a good description of how modern medicine uses figures to

'color' their reports. It describes 'Absolute' and 'relative' so that you will

never look at statistics in the same way.

As for my daughter-in-law? She did not go Alternative and, like so many, had a

double Mastectomy, a year of Chemo/radiation/Herceptin. This young and

attractive woman is mentally devastated by the physical assault but just did not

have the courage to ignore main-stream medicine. Decisions, decisions,

decisions.

A second opinion physician/professor at the University of Miami did tell her,

" do all you can yourself and have lots of greens " and I thought that was

impressive. That she has survived four years makes me happy for my son and

grandson. However we know what cancer is all about and so does she. Remember,

the quick-growing tumor was not detected by either the Mammogram nor the

Gynecologist's 'expert' hands.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Tumor markers are possibly a much better way to monitor cancer. Many studies

suggest they show recurrence around 9 months before it will show up in other

visual scans. So you probably have much more advanced warning, and they can be

done more regularly to monitor treatment success. I think they complement

alternative therapies very well.

>

> Look at it again: I asked the Urologist, 'Do you know what the percentage is

for people getting cancer from the seeding of cancer cells because of a biopsy'?

He looked at me waiting for my answer which was, " 100%.....for the poor soul

that gets cancer from the seeding of cancer cells " .

>

> It pertains to all of these dangers that 'they' claim are remote. Perhaps it

is a small percentage just as it is a small percentage getting cancer from

certain scans or even from Mammograms. What happens when you or me happen to

be one of those small percents? Is it now okay? Heck, you're only one of the

one percent. Thanks, but no thanks.

>

> It was just a play on words that I sometimes use to get a point across and I

suppose can be confusing. Sorry. As usual, it all boils down to the

decisions, decisions, decisions dilemma we face.

>

> Nobody, under any circumstances should not get a Mammogram because of what I

wrote. Establish whether or not what I said has validity and make your

decisions based upon information, not an e-mail.

>

[Guest guest]

My personal opinion is that tumor markers aren't a good idea by themselves, but

should be used in conjunction with other monitoring methods. Tumor markers go

up and down routinely based on other things going on - infections, etc.

For instance, my first CA-125 was 3. My second one the following year was 24.

My third the year after that was 9.

Doctors tend to stay away from using just tumor markers because of the

fluxuations. However, they do seem to be much better used when someone is

metastatic to track progress of treatment, etc.

ar

>

> Tumor markers are possibly a much better way to monitor cancer. Many studies

suggest they show recurrence around 9 months before it will show up in other

visual scans. So you probably have much more advanced warning, and they can be

done more regularly to monitor treatment success. I think they complement

alternative therapies very well.

[Guest guest]

A CA-125 of 24 is still within the normal range (<35 U/ml) though.

CA-125 is only one of many useful markers and other test data that could

be checked.

I'm starting to think that doctors staying away from tumor markers,

because of the fluctuations, is not the real issue, but it's more a

matter of the system being set up to use other more lucrative screening

methods that have been put in place already. Big bucks have been spent

and the government's arms twisted to put funding into it. Not much of an

attempt has been made to develop an effective system based on markers

and other test data.

Does anyone else think the amount of data they collect for patients with

cancer is rather lacking? Considering the severity of the disease...

In this article they discuss the politics of the cancer screening system

and the Tumor Marker Combination Assay (TMCA) Dr Kobayashi developed.

http://www.japaninc.com/mgz_winter_2005_medical_maverick

Kobayashi led a staff of 12 researchers and together they painstakingly

gathered blood samples from 20,000 early-cancer subjects across Japan.

They analyzed the assay data and developed a much more granular system

of mapping markers to blood samples. They came up with 10 markers

distributed across three categories (tumor-specific, tumor-associated,

and tumor-growth) and eventually fine-tuned the system for a sensitivity

level, including the ability to detect early stage cancer, of 80-91

percent, with a higher accuracy of around 84-85 percent. Kobayashi's

tumor marker combination assay (TMCA) is twice as sensitive as the PET

(positron emission tomography) examination.

He submitted to a double-blind test of his marker system by the National

Cancer Institute in the USA. In 1988, the Institute arranged to send him

360 samples of blood serum from the Mayo Clinic's Blood Repository.

The samples consisted of 40 early-stage colon cancer patients, 30 benign

colon cancer patients, and 50 healthy control subjects. Kobayashi was

able to correctly identify the presence of cancer in 87.5% of the

samples.

I recently posted about the Tumor Marker Combination Assay developed by

Dr Kobayashi here:

/message/40702

As with many things like this, nothing came of it. No interest to take

if further. To do screening like this, properly set up must be cheaper

than imaging systems which require expensive equipment set up across the

country. Blood samples can easily be collected anywhere and sent to

pathology labs and results returned within a week or two. I'm sure they

give a much clearer picture of a persons true health status, and find

and address any deficiencies or problems with each person and provide a

more targeted treatment.

What do you think?

>

> My personal opinion is that tumor markers aren't a good idea by

themselves, but should be used in conjunction with other monitoring

methods. Tumor markers go up and down routinely based on other things

going on - infections, etc.

>

> For instance, my first CA-125 was 3. My second one the following year

was 24. My third the year after that was 9.

>

> Doctors tend to stay away from using just tumor markers because of the

fluxuations. However, they do seem to be much better used when someone

is metastatic to track progress of treatment, etc.

>

> ar

[Guest guest]

I have an idea you are more correct in suspecting the motives of 'the system'

is based upon the more lucrative and in some cases, because they have already

invested heavily in CT-Scans, Mammography equipment blah, blah, blah.

I remember once suggesting a contact of mine, who was fretting over

impending breast surgery, explore the use of Radio Frequency Ablation (RFA)

which she did and which resulted in a 1/2 " incision being made, a probe

inserted, and the tumor cooked to death (my words). This was as an outpatient

procedure lasting less than an hour. has also commented that

Microwave Ablation might be superior but because of the massive amount of money

spent on RFA equipment, that was what was going to be used. I see now they

are using it in conjunction with Chemotherapy and again, my eyebrows are raised

because I strongly believe the Cancer Industry put the pressure on the

Ablationists to use the expensive drugs that make drug companies super-rich.

Is there such a word as Ablationist? You get the point of course.

Joe C.