– Double mastectomies offer almost no survival benefit for breast cancer patients, 20-year study proves (Natural News, July 30, 2014):
Western medicine is so aggressive and cut-throat that even the idea of prevention has been skewed to the point of chopping off and cutting out body parts for “preventing” cancer that isn’t even there.
Fear and self-mutilation are not the answer. Today in American mainstream medicine, women are given the option to remove healthy breasts, ovaries and other female parts so cancer won’t get a hold of them in the future. This is like preventing house fires by first burning out important internal structures that might catch fire one day.
Virtually no survival benefit for women who underwent “preventive” mastectomies
A new 20-year study from the University Of Minnesota School Of Medicine proves that this idea of “prevention” is ineffective at keeping cancer away. The idea is barbaric, preys on fear, is not strategic at real prevention at the cellular level and feeds a medical industry corrupt to its core. In fact, the study spanning found that the survival benefit for women who had their healthy breasts removed compared to those who kept their breasts was less than 1 percent in all cases studied. The surgeries possess virtually no benefit, while costing patients and insurance companies wads of more money. The medical industry is focusing in the wrong direction here, taking women down the wrong road of prevention.
Could you imagine how great the survival benefit would be if women were encouraged to make different lifestyle decisions for true prevention? Doctors could help educate women on hormone-disrupting chemicals, helping them avoid toxins like bisphenol A, found in many plastics and can linings. Doctors could be showing women how to alkalize and oxygenate their cells with the correct whole foods. Doctors could empower women with knowledge and know-how, like how to prepare green tea or high quality turmeric, two anti-cancerous powerhouse foods. The philosophy and the focus of Western medicine must change course.
The study’s lead researcher, Dr. Todd Tuttle, said, “We found fairly convincing evidence that there really is no meaningful long-term survival benefit for the vast majority of women with breast cancer by having their opposite breast removed.”
“Most patients have very minimal increases in life expectancy, one to seven months,” he said, pointing out that the vague difference was seen in younger women but was spread over two or more decades.
Mastectomies motivated by fear, not by practical, hopeful prevention at the cellular level
The more than 20 years of research encompassed 100,000 women with stage I or stage II breast cancers. What’s interesting about the breast cancer cases in this study is that none of the women even had the so called breast cancer genes, BRCA-1 and BRCA-2, before they got the cancer.
From years of practicing medicine, lead researcher Dr. Tuttle sees how many women are acting out of fear when they ask for “preventive” mastectomies. Dr. Tuttle often tells those who choose the procedure, “It’s really a false sense of security.” He says fear is the underlying factor and points to one study where breast cancer patients age 40 and under chose to have their other healthy breast removed because of fear. 94 percent said they wanted to boost their survival, but only 18 percent of them actually believed that the procedure would work for them.
Instead of allowing fear to rule the minds of women, hopeful prevention strategies should be encouraged.
Why aren’t doctors and hospitals growing elaborate greenhouses full of green leafy vegetables?
What if doctors taught green juicing right at the office and taught women how to create an internal cellular environment that repels cancer and boosts ATP energy production?
Sources for this article include: