The Marshall Protocol Study Site Home

Search
   
Members

Calendar

Help

Home
Search by username
   Not logged in - Login | Register 


Breast Cancer - The 'Popularity Paradox'
 Moderated by: Prof Trevor Marshall Page:    1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  
 

New Topic

Reply

Print
AuthorPost
Prof Trevor Marshall
Foundation Staff


Joined: Fri Jul 9th, 2004
Location: Thousand Oaks, California USA
Posts: 15733
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 31st, 2012 02:20

Quote

Reply
"The Guardian" has an excellent article discussing the risk of of overdiagnosis of breast cancer which is a 'must-read' for us all:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/31/breast-screening-paternalistic-wrong

".. if you are diagnosed with breast cancer at screening .. there is a 6% chance treatment will stop your death from breast cancer and a 19% chance that it will be an overdiagnosis leading to unnecessary treatment. This leads to the "popularity paradox" in screening – that everyone who is treated is led to think that their treatment was lifesaving"

I have yet to see metastatic (spreading) cancer develop in any of our members on the MP. Those cancers which have been found, tend to be inactive - old lesions - and the benefit of 'treating' them has to be carefully weighed against the risk of additional damage from the Th1 disease process itself.

However it is tough for somebody given a Breast Cancer diagnosis to objectively weigh the risks and benefits of therapy. In the past, my own cautions that treatment is ineffective, and may well hinder your recovery from the primary inflammatory disease process, have often been subjected to ridicule.

"Doc says its Cancer, and I can't take that risk" is what I often hear. Yet Doc doesn't understand what is making you ill, that is why you came to the MP in the first place... Doc can't lose by exaggerating the risk - because of the 'popularity paradox' - most  who are misdiagnosed will recover, and they will thank Doc for 'saving their lives'.

And we must always remember that it is the failure of your innate immune system to deal with the cancerous cells which has led to the lesion in the first place...

Anyway, let's use this article (and study) as a basis for discussion, moving forward...

marion villa
Health Professional


Joined: Thu Dec 15th, 2005
Location: Mexico City, Distrito Federal México
Posts: 1372
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 31st, 2012 15:35

Quote

Reply
Dr M
I totally agree with you. Chemotherapy does not help, just destroys the little strength left by Th1 in a person.

You aren't or will never be ridiculous



____________________
Lupus, RA, erythema nosodum, skin ulcers, MP 11/07, little meloxicam, paracetamol, NoIRs, ,Ph 2 /20 april 2008,ph 3/ 22 oct 2008. Only benicar now
lastD <4ng june 2014
sun sensitivity.
wrotek
member


Joined: Thu Dec 30th, 2004
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
Posts: 2900
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Nov 1st, 2012 02:26

Quote

Reply
I really start to wonder if there exist something like cancer, that can overcome healthy immune system.

Recently i have been watching Dr Shinya colonoscopy(GRAPHIC!) work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrok9EEb_bk many of these people suffer from cancer.It refers to kanger water but i suppose normal water would do just fine.

It is amazing oncologists use chemo and radiation to kill tumor, but not  think about restoring immune system that would prevent any next tumor from developing  When the tumor comes back. they say it is spreading from original one. But is it really ? Maybe it is just another one, totally different that arrived from weak immune system.

Last edited on Thu Nov 1st, 2012 02:27 by wrotek



____________________
Lyme reflux chronic pain fatigue depression 125D36 Ph1Sep05 Ph2Oct06 Ph3Apr07 in low lux NoIRs 25D<7 Oct06
Rico
Support Team
 

Joined: Tue May 30th, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1357
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2012 14:55

Quote

Reply
Cancer Survivor or Victim of Overdiagnosis?

[code]... there was a lot of overdiagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer — most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation — for a “cancer” that was never going to make them sick. Although it’s impossible to know which women these are, that’s some pretty serious harm

Last edited on Wed Nov 21st, 2012 14:55 by Rico



____________________
No diagnosis/some symptoms (more than I knew); wife with Sarc on MP; Olm 40mg q4-6h | 25D=22 (May 2014) | 25D=27 (Nov 2014)
keithw
Support Team


Joined: Sun May 24th, 2009
Location: Amphur Sangkha, Surin, Thailand
Posts: 2799
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2012 20:02

Quote

Reply
There is no money in curing cancer, only in treating it.

Cancer has been under research for more than a century in most developed countries in nearly every hospital, lab and research facility at a cost of millions of man hours and dollars.

Correct me if I am wrong but I can only draw two possible conclusions from this, either cancer researchers (present company excluded) are collectively a bunch of nincompoops or the mighty greenback has triumphed again and jobs are more important than lives.

The system is so quick to jump on "alternative therapies" without even bothering to test them that I just can't take it seriously anymore.

Having lost a few friends recently to therapies that have little or no historical evidence of success it annoys me to see these pompous "health professionals" speaking with authority on a subject they are abject failures at.

Excuse my irritation but I learned earlier today that another friend of mine had passed from a disease that we seem to be handling competently hereabouts.

:X:dude:



____________________
WeanPred May09 no breaks SLE, CNS vasculitis, avascular necrosis, arthritis both shoulders Ph1Aug09 Ph2Nov09 Ph3Feb10 25D35(May09)18(Mar10)16.7(Jul10)13.6(Jan11)13.2 (Oct 11)14.8(Aug 12) around 35(Jul14)due to weight loss!
Cairo123
Support Team


Joined: Sat Oct 13th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 6296
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2012 20:13

Quote

Reply
I agree Keith. Some 40 or so years ago they started the war on cancer here in the US. Someone seems to be always collecting money to find the cure. While some progress has been made in some cancers we are not where we should be.



____________________
Sarcoidosis, Arthritis, Fallen Arch, Vascular Insufficiency, fatty liver,diverticulosis, 1,25D 16 (Oct08) | Ph1 Nov07, Ph2 Jan08, Ph3 May 09 Ben Only: Jun 10- Sep 10|Break Sep 10-Dec 10|Resume MP Dec 10|
Frenchie
Support Team


Joined: Fri Dec 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 452
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2012 02:16

Quote

Reply
The author of that article is my cousin, and he has written a book looking at a wider view of the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Overdiagnosed-Making-People-Pursuit-Health/dp/0807021997

His focus is primarily on the people of his generation (he is in his 50s) where overdiagnosis by a medical industry seeking to cash in is a major problem, but it is also worth bearing in mind that the rates of many serious illnesses are genuinely increasing, particularly among children, so environmental exposures need to be investigated rather than just writing the problem off as one of diagnosis.



____________________
Gulf War Syndrome, 1,25D 62 pg/ml Oct09, Ph1Jan10, 25D 9 ng/ml Mar 13
keithw
Support Team


Joined: Sun May 24th, 2009
Location: Amphur Sangkha, Surin, Thailand
Posts: 2799
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2012 03:10

Quote

Reply
Cancer, like many other pathogens is anaerobic as in it needs a low oxygen environment to survive and prosper.

This is a disease of the times as we (humans) have brought this situation about.
Until the industrial revolution the oxygen content of our atmosphere ran close to 30% but industry and the population explosion have reduced it to its current level of around 20% and even lower in heavily populated areas where it can drop as low as 10% during rush hour and in areas thick with carbon monoxide or smoke from industry or tobacco.

Small wonder that disease is rife in areas of high density living, high bacterial levels and close proximity coupled with low oxygen is the perfect breeding ground for any number of diseases.

They say you can't catch cancer, it isn't infectious but the bacteria behind the disease certainly are.

I used this logic when I moved to the country and I credit the clean air hereabouts as a major factor in my MP recovery and return to health.

:dude:



____________________
WeanPred May09 no breaks SLE, CNS vasculitis, avascular necrosis, arthritis both shoulders Ph1Aug09 Ph2Nov09 Ph3Feb10 25D35(May09)18(Mar10)16.7(Jul10)13.6(Jan11)13.2 (Oct 11)14.8(Aug 12) around 35(Jul14)due to weight loss!
wrotek
member


Joined: Thu Dec 30th, 2004
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
Posts: 2900
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2012 03:21

Quote

Reply
keithw wrote: There is no money in curing cancer, only in treating it.

Cancer has been under research for more than a century in most developed countries in nearly every hospital, lab and research facility at a cost of millions of man hours and dollars.

Correct me if I am wrong but I can only draw two possible conclusions from this, either cancer researchers (present company excluded) are collectively a bunch of nincompoops or the mighty greenback has triumphed again and jobs are more important than lives.

The system is so quick to jump on "alternative therapies" without even bothering to test them that I just can't take it seriously anymore.

Having lost a few friends recently to therapies that have little or no historical evidence of success it annoys me to see these pompous "health professionals" speaking with authority on a subject they are abject failures at.

Excuse my irritation but I learned earlier today that another friend of mine had passed from a disease that we seem to be handling competently hereabouts.

:X:dude:

One can buy a scientific magazine every month, a read that scientists are close to finding something :) But they never get too close



____________________
Lyme reflux chronic pain fatigue depression 125D36 Ph1Sep05 Ph2Oct06 Ph3Apr07 in low lux NoIRs 25D<7 Oct06
leroybrown
...


Joined: Sat Oct 31st, 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Posts: 4784
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2012 06:10

Quote

Reply
Cancer has been under research for more than a century in most developed countries in nearly every hospital, lab and research facility at a cost of millions of man hours and dollars.

Correct me if I am wrong but I can only draw two possible conclusions from this, either cancer researchers (present company excluded) are collectively a bunch of nincompoops or the mighty greenback has triumphed again and jobs are more important than lives.


I agree Keith.

Deb



____________________
I just know that something good is going to happen
And I don't know when - Kate Bush
Aplastic anemia Apr/10, PRCA Jan/09, Agranulocytosis 1991
25D = 25 1,25D = 58 Aug 18/09|25D<4.8 Mar/10|10.8 Nov/12
Sep '09 q8h Nov '09 q6h
pgeek
Support Team


Joined: Thu Dec 17th, 2009
Location: Israel
Posts: 2220
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2012 22:43

Quote

Reply
leroybrown wrote:
Cancer has been under research for more than a century in most developed countries in nearly every hospital, lab and research facility at a cost of millions of man hours and dollars.

Correct me if I am wrong but I can only draw two possible conclusions from this, either cancer researchers (present company excluded) are collectively a bunch of nincompoops or the mighty greenback has triumphed again and jobs are more important than lives.

Although this is exactly the sort of thing I sometimes catch myself thinking, it is a bit uncharitable. And any researchers who managed to 'cure cancer' would do rather well on the greenback front...

Edit: NYT a couple of days ago had an article along the same lines based on US research.



____________________
Chronic Prostatitis, IBD(?)|Covered (+ ZnO in sun) |Sunglasses |25D: <4Jan12 (4Mar11/10Dec10/14Jan10| Alias: MR MUDDLE-THROUGH
Prof Trevor Marshall
Foundation Staff


Joined: Fri Jul 9th, 2004
Location: Thousand Oaks, California USA
Posts: 15733
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2012 02:12

Quote

Reply
Don't completely discard the nincompoop hypothesis, it is the more likely one.

The reasons most researchers fail are many, and complex, but relate to incompetence in experimental design, not contemplating the alternate hypothesis, not looking for both Type 1 and Type 2 errors.

Specialization has also resulted in 'blinders' being applied to research fields, which make it pretty hard to figure out a systemic disease dysfunction, such as metastasis.

mvanwink5
Support Team


Joined: Fri Nov 5th, 2010
Location: Newland, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3537
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2012 02:52

Quote

Reply
Immune system suppressing palliation has been around for maybe 10's of millennia along with malnutrition, and so has chronic disease. From our view, the FDA's successful efforts at flooding our food chain with high levels of vitamin D has had to have contributed to the outcome also. Of course along with affluence comes the greater availability of immune suppressing helpers. It would seem tough to me to sort it all out.

Best regards,
Mike



____________________
Lyme joints, EMF sensitive, MP start 8/10; 25D <4ng/ml 6/19; vegetarian; olmesartan only-240mg/d, RF shielding required, My Progress: http://tinyurl.com/z2stwo8
JohnMcC
Member*


Joined: Wed Mar 9th, 2005
Location: London, Ontario Canada
Posts: 356
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2012 03:06

Quote

Reply


The direction of any research ultimately lies with the definition by the funding exec and its expected/desired results (IMHO)



____________________
MP Sept 08 olmetec only since 2010 | Sarcoid biopsy ’93 | Lungs, lymph, skin, fevers |last25D=5.6 Nov’10 | light sensitivity decreased
Frenchie
Support Team


Joined: Fri Dec 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 452
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2012 03:07

Quote

Reply
keithw wrote:Until the industrial revolution the oxygen content of our atmosphere ran close to 30% but industry and the population explosion have reduced it to its current level of around 20% and even lower in heavily populated areas where it can drop as low as 10% during rush hour and in areas thick with carbon monoxide or smoke from industry or tobacco.
I am not sure where you may have read that but I suggest you get your information elsewhere.

The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere reached a peak of around 30% in the carboniferious period (before the dinosaurs) but it has only dropped around 0.1% as a result of the industrial revolution.

Human blood has evolved so that close to 100% of haemoglobin is saturated when it leaves the lungs at sea level oxygen concentrations (tribes in the Himalaya and Andes excepted) so an increase in atmospheric oxygen would not significantly increase the level reaching the tissues, while air containing only 10% oxygen would be the equivalent of being at Everest base camp where without acclimatisation you would become very ill very quickly.

Atmospheric pollution may well cause cancer but not through deprivation of oxygen.



____________________
Gulf War Syndrome, 1,25D 62 pg/ml Oct09, Ph1Jan10, 25D 9 ng/ml Mar 13
Frenchie
Support Team


Joined: Fri Dec 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 452
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2012 03:58

Quote

Reply
JohnMcC wrote: The direction of any research ultimately lies with the definition by the funding exec and its expected/desired results (IMHO)

Twenty years ago when I was a student I went to a party at Cambridge where I got talking to a postdoc who told me he had started his research career thinking that the way to find cures for illnesses such as cancer was to carefully look at the cell structures and understand the fundamental mechanisms, but he had changed his mind because there were so many drugs becoming available that it was more effective just to hit illnesses with everything on the shelf to see what worked.

It is a cultural thing.  The previous fifteen years had seen the retirement from Cambridge of Fred Sanger, Max Perutz, Francis Crick, Hugh Huxley, Aaron Klug, Dai Phillips, Cesar Milstein, and the rest of the generation who had so successfully set modern medical research in motion, and behind them a different attitude was coming to dominate which was more commercially driven and in which academic freedom was a luxury for idealists to lament over.

Twenty years later we can see the result, but when I have discussed the idea of CWD forms compromising the immune system with scientists most of them have been very interested, and there is no reason why science wouldn't be able to solve the problem of chronic illness if the structure on which it functions were reset.



____________________
Gulf War Syndrome, 1,25D 62 pg/ml Oct09, Ph1Jan10, 25D 9 ng/ml Mar 13
JohnMcC
Member*


Joined: Wed Mar 9th, 2005
Location: London, Ontario Canada
Posts: 356
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2012 05:45

Quote

Reply
I am sure there are many fine minds that would like to have free reign and make discoveries that make a difference - the funding is reliant on pharma and others and they drive the agenda.  If you don't follow the spec and give the required results, you don't get the funding.

The MP is a classic case of this - it does not comply with the collective and may even  return health (causing a loss in profit) - hence, so far the MP struggles to get mainstream support (although not for lack of effort of the MP team) and larger funding opportunities (government etc)


"there is no reason why science wouldn't be able to solve the problem of chronic illness if the structure on which it functions were reset."

Already been solved for the better part - the difficulty is getting mainstream to accept and admit that for 50-60ys the premise of immuno-suppression for everything has been flawed.   The original article regarding over diagnosis and IMO an unholy rush to over medicate is the current MO and will be for some time I reckon.



____________________
MP Sept 08 olmetec only since 2010 | Sarcoid biopsy ’93 | Lungs, lymph, skin, fevers |last25D=5.6 Nov’10 | light sensitivity decreased
Prof Trevor Marshall
Foundation Staff


Joined: Fri Jul 9th, 2004
Location: Thousand Oaks, California USA
Posts: 15733
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2012 06:45

Quote

Reply
The original article regarding over diagnosis and IMO an unholy rush to over medicate is the current MO and will be for some time I reckon.
I think there is one factor which might change the current paradigm -- information. Patients now have access to enough information (via the Internet) and can talk to enough people (via social media) that they are empowered to see that something is fundamentally wrong. As the inevitability of succumbing to chronic disease becomes more obvious to the population in general, there may very well be pressure for change. I already see it from the patients' groups in the rare diseases. Last week's events in Washington highlighted the beginning of a shift. The passage of both FAST and ULTRA in FDASIA (PDUFA) was very significant, IMO.

But only time will tell the degree of traction this discontent picks up in the community at large.

leroybrown
...


Joined: Sat Oct 31st, 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Posts: 4784
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2012 06:57

Quote

Reply
If anything is uncharitable, it is a system that puts profit over people's suffering.

Deb



____________________
I just know that something good is going to happen
And I don't know when - Kate Bush
Aplastic anemia Apr/10, PRCA Jan/09, Agranulocytosis 1991
25D = 25 1,25D = 58 Aug 18/09|25D<4.8 Mar/10|10.8 Nov/12
Sep '09 q8h Nov '09 q6h
JohnMcC
Member*


Joined: Wed Mar 9th, 2005
Location: London, Ontario Canada
Posts: 356
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2012 09:08

Quote

Reply
Dr Trevor Marshall wrote: The original article regarding over diagnosis and IMO an unholy rush to over medicate is the current MO and will be for some time I reckon.
I think there is one factor which might change the current paradigm -- information. Patients now have access to enough information (via the Internet) and can talk to enough people (via social media) that they are empowered to see that something is fundamentally wrong. As the inevitability of succumbing to chronic disease becomes more obvious to the population in general, there may very well be pressure for change. I already see it from the patients' groups in the rare diseases. Last week's events in Washington highlighted the beginning of a shift. The passage of both FAST and ULTRA in FDASIA (PDUFA) was very significant, IMO.

But only time will tell the degree of traction this discontent picks up in the community at large.

It has been noticeable in my recent experiences with emergency rooms, new family Doc and even a respirologist - there seemed a reluctance to challenge a determined and knowledgeable patient and more of an inclination to be less "god" like and domineering.  Certainly my family GP ridiculed me when I first went to her with the MP documentation and that was only 2004/5   - Facebook & Twitter were being created and the world has begun to shrink exponentially since then.

We live in interesting times (I hope)



____________________
MP Sept 08 olmetec only since 2010 | Sarcoid biopsy ’93 | Lungs, lymph, skin, fevers |last25D=5.6 Nov’10 | light sensitivity decreased

 Current time is 18:08
Page:    1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  



* We can help you understand chronic disease, but only your physician is licensed to give you medical care *

Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Entire site Copyright © 2004-2019 Autoimmunity Research Foundation, All Rights Reserved
Click here to view our PRIVACY POLICY
Page processed in 0.0469 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 21 queries executed.