Cancer. Over diagnosis and over treatment? Or massaging the cancer statistics?

The Journal of the American Medical Association published an article in 2013 entitled "Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Cancer. An Opportunity for Improvement". The problem with over diagnosis is that it unnecessarily frightens patients, who are told that they have cancer when they do not have cancer. The problem with over treatment is that the treatments are dangerous.This is how the journal described the issue.

          "Over the past 30 years, awareness and screening have led to an emphasis on early diagnosis of cancer. Although the goals of these efforts were to reduce the rate of late-stage disease and decrease cancer mortality, secular trends and clinical trials suggest that these goals have not been met; national data demonstrate significant increases in early-stage disease, without a proportional decline in later-stage disease. What has emerged has been an appreciation of the complexity of the pathologic condition called cancer. The word “cancer” often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime. Better biology alone can explain better outcomes. Although this complexity complicates the goal of early diagnosis, its recognition provides an opportunity to adapt cancer screening with a focus on identifying and treating those conditions most likely associated with morbidity and mortality."

Natural News takes the problem more seriously in an article entitled 'Unbelievable scam of cancer industry blown wide open: $100 billion a year spent on toxic chemotherapy for many FAKE diagnoses... National Cancer Institute's shocking admission affects millions of patients'.  They say this of the JAMA article.

          "With $100 billion a year now being spent on toxic chemotherapy treatments that damage patients and cause "chemo brain" side effects, a panel of cancer experts commissioned by the National Cancer Institute publicly admitted two years ago that tens of millions of "cancer cases" aren't cancer at all. Tens of millions of people who have been diagnosed with "cancer" by crooked oncologists - and scared into medically unjustified but extremely profitable chemotherapy treatments - never had any sort of life-threatening condition to begin with, scientists have confirmed".

• Mammograms routinely over diagnose cancer.
• DCIS is often described as breast cancer, when it is not.
• And prostate cancer is routinely over diagnosed.

Health News Review has also dealt with this important subject, and is also an article worth reading. Most coverage of the JAMA study focuses on two factors, first, the scaremongering, and the impact this has on frightened patients. And second, the profiteering that this gives rise to within the conventional medical establishment.

What is not mentioned is that over diagnosis and over treatment has one more advantage for the pharmaceutical industry. It can be simply stated.

When false mammogram results, and calling DCIS 'cancer', et al, increases cancer rates, it enhances the message - "Cancer is a really serious problem. It has to be tacked. Let us encourage as many people as possible to raise money for the pharmaceutical companies so that they can come up with cures". So it is not just that patients are unnecessarily treated with profitable drugs. It enhances the image of cancer as a serious threat to all of us, and facilitates more research, more drugs, and ultimately, more profits.

But then it is discovered that many of these patients, diagnosed with cancer, and treated with pharmaceutical drugs, no longer have cancer. It is a cure! The drugs are working! The five-year survival rates are improving! Pharmaceutical drugs DO work! Early diagnosis is really important.

But unfortunately, it is all a sleight of hand.

It is all part of the brilliance of the pharmaceutical marketing machine.

Statin Drugs. Doctors conflicted about their safety?

The conventional medical establishment appears to be conflicted over Statin drugs. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which provides doctors in Britain with advice and guidelines about prescribing drugs recently advice an increase in Statin prescribing. Whereas previous advice was to prescribe them to any patient who had a 30% risk of a heart attack or stroke, they changed that advice to anyone who had a 10% chance.

This would have meant a considerable increase in the number of people taking Statins, particularly amongst older people. NICE said that it would prevent 28,000 heart attacks, and 16,000 strokes every year. So, something worth doing?

Well, unfortunately, doctors did not think so. A recent analysis by the GPs' magazine, Pulse, discovered that since the new NICE guidelines were given, prescriptions for statin drugs had shown only a 2% rise.

So why the discrepancy? Is there increasing conflict within the conventional medical establishment about Statins? And if so, what is the conflict about?

The problem concerns the safety of Statin drugs. Once, not many years ago, conventional medicine was telling us that these were miracle drugs, reducing heart attacks and strokes, but with little or no side effects. They were, we were told, entirely safe.

Indeed, it is that type of blue-sky thinking that underlay NICE's amended guidelines to doctors. The reason for this is not difficult to find. NICE, like most government sponsored health advisory bodies, is influenced, infiltrated and dominated by medics who have strong links with the powerful pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, most of NICE's advice is driven by the interests of these companies, whose major objective is to sell drugs to patients.

Yet the dangers of Statins is becoming increasingly obvious to an increasing number of people. There is growing numbers of people who are reluctant to take Statin drugs. Doctors meet with people every day. They are aware of this growing concern. And they cannot be unaware of the very serious evidence that is building against these harmful drugs.

In 2014, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) reported that it had received 730 adverse reports related to the five most prescribed Statins in Britain, namely Simvastatin, Atorvastatin, Rosuvastatin, Pravastatin and Fluvastatin. Yet it is well known that only about 10% of adverse reactions to drugs are reported - this, in itself, probably an underestimate. What this means is that in one year, in Britain, over 7,000 patients has been damaged by Statin drugs.

What damage is it causing? The side effects of Statins are now known to include:

• Muscle pain, weakness (myopathy).
• Fatigue.
• Cataracts.
• Weight gain.
• Diabetes
• Kidney failure.
• Liver dysfunction.
• Memory loss, confusion and dementia.
• Parkinson's disease

Dust Mite Allergy. A new conventional treatment - and it's homeopathy?

The Times announced a new treatment for dust mite allergy in an article published on 11th November 2015. As the article said, this is great news as an estimated 12 million Britons are thought to struggle with ailments brought on by dust mites, with symptoms including wheezing, disturbed sleep and inflammation.

And, as the Times points out, whilst previous treatments (vaccines and antihistamine drugs) have not been very successful, the new treatment, according to clinical trials, could be "a lasting cure". Good news indeed. Apparently the new treatment begins to ease the symptoms within 3 to 4 months.

Yet the good news does not end there. The Times says that another study, published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, appears to show that it is safe for most teenagers, even for two patients with 'life-threatening allergic reactions'.

And it gets better. Other tests have apparently indicated that it could be a potent treatment for asthma, which affects 5.4 million people in Britain, and is often closely linked to dust. Indeed, the Times says, the tablet seems to be a particularly effective treatment for those whose asthma cannot be controlled with inhalers.

So what is this new treatment? It is a pill made from freeze dried dust mites, that is taken by mouth, and dissolves under the tongue. The pill has been developed by the pharmaceutical companies, Merck and ALK. It received approval from the European Medicines Agency in August 2015, and it is planned for it to go on sale in 11 countries in 2016.

So, dust mite allergy is being treated with dust mites. Why should that work so well, so safely, and apparently so cheaply too.

Well, of course, this is Homeopathy. It is based on the homeopathic principle of 

"curing like with like".

So Merck and ALK should be congratulated with coming up with such a cure for dust mite allergy. Although they, and other pharmaceutical companies, attack homeopathy regularly and relentlessly, they have at last been able to prove that homeopathy does work. They are catching up. A principle developed by Hahnemann over 220 years ago is now being utilised by the conventional medical establishment. Even the means of taking the new pill, by mouth, and dissolving under the tongue, is common homeopathic advice given to patients when taking remedies!

This is my third blog about how conventional medicine is now utilising homeopathic principles. The first, "Superbugs. Homeopathy is proven to work - treating like with like" concerned the treatment of Clostridium difficile. The second concerned a new treatment for peanut allergy, "Peanut Allergy Treatment - another success for Homeopathy".

Perhaps Merck, ALK, and other pharmaceutical companies, might like to give some credit to the homeopathic community for these new treatments.

Menopause Issues and NICE guidelines? HRT might cause cancer, heart problems and dementia, but what the hell, women should take it anyway!

"Women whose lives are being affected by the symptoms of menopause should not feel they have to suffer in silence". This is the guidance of NICE, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence.

Instead, their guidance to doctors recommends hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which the say is "effective for treating several menopausal symptoms". It recommends that doctors offer HRT for hot flushes and night sweats "after discussing the risks and benefits".

HRT has been around for many years. Premarin was first introduced in 1942. So why has this NICE advice only been brought out today (12th November 2015)? NICE explains.

          "Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is a treatment option for menopausal symptoms, yet over the last decade confusion over its safety has led to a decline in its use and variation in practice" (my emphasis).

So, there has been 'confusion' for the last decade over its safety. What is this confusion? NICE does not bother to tell us. Indeed, in the whole of their guidance article, the word 'CANCER' is mentioned just once, and that tucked away at the bottom of the article! Perhaps they hope that we have forgotten about HRT's safety issues. So if there are women who have forgotten, and might be considering taking HRT, this is something I wrote several years ago.

          "Eventually, several trials produced results that were so bad they had to be discontinued.  In 2002, trials conducted by the Women’s Health Initiative in the USA, described as 'the largest and best designed federal studies of HRT'  was halted because women taking the hormones had a significantly increased risk of breast  and cervical cancer, heart attacks, stroke and blood clots. More trials were terminated in 2007, when a study of 5,692 women taking HRT raised similar concerns but added 'more definition to the health risks' (WDDTY 9 August 2007, source: British Medical Journal, 2007; 335: 239-44).

Note that the scientific studies were stopped before they had been concluded! The results were so bad, HRT was found to be so dangerous, researchers refused to continue with the trials. It should also be noted that other trials had found that HRT caused many other serious illnesses and diseases too, including a significantly increased the risk of dementia.

So during the 2000's, prescriptions for HRT treatment for the menopause were drastically reduced. The result was that breast cancer rates were significantly reduced. One result was that in the USA breast cancer rates fell by 12% in 2003 among women aged between 50 and 69, the most likely to be taking HRT.

Despite this, the drugs were never banned, despite the high probability of significant harm to the women who continued to take them. And now, NICE is trying to rehabilitate them!

It would appear that the new NICE guidelines have been written in the belief that it is possible to ignore this evidence, and encourage women passing through the menopause to take the drug. They actually call the new guidelines 'the Gold Standard'!

• HRT will still cause cancer, and all the other diseases it has been associated with.
• No-one taking HRT will be guaranteed that they won't suffer from one or more of these serious diseases.
• But despite this doctors are now expected to encourage women to take HRT.

One problem is that the pharmaceutical industry has never found an alternative to HRT. However much a woman is suffering from menopausal symptoms, the only treatment the conventional medical system has to offer her is this failed and dangerous drug.

Nor does NICE mention that women do have alternatives, outside conventional medicine, dominated as it is by harmful and dangerous drugs like HRT. For  many years, an increasing number of women are now looking towards Homeopathy as a safer, and more effective treatment for menopausal problems. For a comparison of conventional and homeopathic treatment of menopausal issues, go to this website.

So why does NICE not mention such alternatives to drug-based treatment? Why does their guidance fail to point menopausal women to non-conventional treatments? Would this not extent informed patient choice?

NICE are part of the conventional medical establishment. It is an organisation dominated by people with close links to the pharmaceutical companies. It seems to be intent on encouraging doctors and patients to take more and more drugs. Yesterday, for instance, I wrote a blog about their promotion of Statin drugs. So whilst NICE recognises drug and vaccine dangers it fails to highlight them, and discounts them.

HRT might cause cancer, heart problems, and dementia. But what the hell! Drugs are profitable. They are indeed, the 'gold standard' for the pharmaceutical industry. Homeopathy is not profitable, and using it will reduce those taking drugs. 

And women's health, it would appear, is not really that important at all to the conventional medical establishment!

There is a brilliant new plan to save the NHS!

Listen to the news on the radio or television, read your newspaper, and you will know that the NHS is in trouble, serious trouble. For those people not living in the UK, let me put you in the picture by outlining just some of the problems facing the British NHS.

• GP surgeries cannot cope with the demands of sick people.
• GP surgeries are finding it difficult to recruit new doctors to replace those leaving or retiring.
• A&E units in hospital are struggling to cope with the demands of people who need emergency care.
• Junior doctors are threatening to go on strike next month over pay and conditions of employment.
• Morale throughout all levels of the NHS is at an all-time low.
• Winter is approaching, and there is serious concern that the NHS will cease to function, and that if there is a cold winter it will grind to a halt.
• The NHS is underfunded. Only £120 billion is spent on our health services, and we are told that this is just not enough (spending has tripled from about £40 billion in 1997).
• Many NHS Trusts throughout the country are overspending. It is estimated that there will be an overspend of about £1 billion this financial year.

The plan is simple, and it will overcome all the travails of the NHS. At the moment, £4 million is spent by the NHS every year on Homeopathy. This should be stopped, and spent instead on the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that people need.

This plan has been put forward by Simon Singh, that well known supporter of conventional medicine, and the health-giving benefits of Coca Cola drinks. And the BBC was good enough, this morning (13th November 2015) to give him a platform to espouse his views.

So, with another £4 million being added to the NHS drugs budget, which is about £20 billion, all should be well.

There are perhaps a couple of minor things the NHS might have to do.

• Ensure that the pharmaceutical drugs are working, like overcoming the problem of antibiotic resistance, the problems doctors face prescribing painkilling drugs because of their dangerous side effects, and the increasing awareness of just how dangerous Statin drugs are.
• Overcoming the increasing patient reluctance to taking more 'safe' drugs and vaccines that are proving to be harmful, and 'effective' drug and vaccines that are proving incapable of dealing the the rising epidemic of chronic disease in Britain.
• Overcoming the policy of 'patient choice' and health freedom that are central to the health policies of the Conservative government, the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National, Green party, et al.
• Persuading every patient in the country that we should only be taking those drugs approved by Simon Singh, and his organisation 'Sense about Science'.

Apart from that, I really do think that Simon has cracked the problem!

Now, do I sense another large cheque floating through the ether from a pharmaceutical company? No, of course not. Sense about Science is not moved by such things in any way whatsoever!