Research: Breast Cancer May Disappear Without Treatment

Editor’s Note: Dr. Fuhrman responds to a recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggesting breast cancer screening, i.e. mammography, has lead to an over-diagnosis of cancer. The research, which took 4 years to get published, claims 22% of cancer cases do not need treatment and will resolve on their own.

It’s easy to understand why this study was so hard to get published and the stranglehold the drug companies and the medical profession has on the status quo in disease-care. It should not even be called health care!

It has been known for years that a large percentage of the so-called diagnoses of cancer are not really cancer. The movement of cells toward more and more abnormalities that eventually get diagnosed with cancer is not a black and white line that they cross. Some cells are clearly normal, other cells may be clearly cancerous, but many fall into a grey area, where the state of cancer (uncontrolled cell replication) is not 100 percent clear.

In this range, many of these so-called cancers are the most likely to reverse, or not really manifest cancerous properties after diagnoses. Additionally, these earlier and less definitive or early cancers are more likely to respond to nutritional interventions. In other words, the most likely scenario where a cancer disappears from nutritional interventions is in those cancers that are comprised of cells that are not as cancerous, if we could measure cancerous properties on a continuum.

Lastly, one of the reasons why mammograms have such a small, almost worthless impact on reducing deaths from breast cancer in so many medical studies is because, many of the so-called cancers that are then treated with chemotherapy or radiation are conditions that would never have progressed to a metastatic or life threatening condition, so the risks from the treatment were more significant than from the native disease.

This is especially concerning because belief in the success of chemotherapy for estrogen positive post-menopausal breast cancer is so ubiquitous, but the true benefits are miniscule. The point is that this is a confusing and complicated issue that we are only in the infancy of understanding and our present screening and treatment of most cancers is barbaric, ineffective and leaves much to be desired.

Superior nutrition and a healthful lifestyle is still the best way to win the war on cancer in the modern world, but these protective nutritional changes must taken throughout society, including children when the dividing cells are most susceptible to damage.

Via CBS News.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (3) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
HappyCat - November 26, 2008 6:54 PM

The theory is that we get cancer throughout our lives and our bodies usually reject it. I have to doubt if cancers large enough to be detected really go away on their own or if there aren't other factors that the study hasn't identified. Correlation is not causation.

The sad thing is that it has been known for decades that lifestyle changes can help to prevent cancer and yet people fail to implement them or pursue self-destructive behaviors such as smoking.

Foodaroo - November 26, 2008 10:05 PM

I have a hard time understanding why radiation or chemo is even administered. They both cause free radicals. Why do doctors want to use more free radical to fight cancer?

Sara - November 27, 2008 4:06 PM

Foodaroo- Why- Money, most doctors don't understand a thing about health.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.

Remember personal info?