Breast Cancer

Here is someone else who used that therapy.

www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/davidson.html.

According to Quackwatch
"There is no scientific evidence exposure to magnetic fields is effective against cancer, that cancer cells respond differently than normal cells to a magnetic field, or that the magnetic field produced by the clinic's device can cause any cell to implode.

The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices used for medical diagnosis use radiofrequency waves, a very strong magnetic field, and a computer to produce cross-sectional images of the body. The patient is placed inside a large magnetic coil. When the magnetic field is turned on, it causes hydrogen nuclei (protons) within the body to line up in one direction. Then selected radiofrequency waves flip these particles in another direction. When the waves are turned off, the particles realign, releasing an electromagnetic signal that the computer translates into an image. The procedure produces no known permanent effect on cell structure or function. It may show the presence of a cancer by producing shadows that represent tumor masses. But it cannot detect any difference between normal and cancer cells at the cellular level.

If magnetic fields were capable of killing cells, MRI devices might seriously damage the patient's body. Furthermore, even if powerful magnetic fields could kill cancer cells, there is no reason to believe that the clinic's device—which had a much weaker magnetic field—could have had the same ability."

There is such a drive to find a cure for cancer that I really think that if this therapy had a chance of true success, it would have been picked up eagerly by one of the many genuine researchers.

About four years ago there was a lot of interest about Dr Holt on television in Australia. If you watch Ray Martin's segment about him, that was part of it. Ray Martin is a well known journalist in Australia and I don't think he would ruin his reputation by doing a story on someone that is not sincere.

What if this was a cure for cancer and it has been ignored, or if there were other cures for cancer and those people had been treated as Dr Holt has been?

www.holtclinic.com/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-05DWO6_4g&feature=related

Faye I have to say at a 1 min glance this looks fishy. The references do not appear to refer to radiowave therapy.
What is your contact with this establishment?

Jess I wonder if it's along the line of radiowave therapy.

www.radiowaveclinic.com/

Very interesting.

Interesting article here about possible future development in detecting and treating breast lumps.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025090349.htm

I wondered that too. I lost about 4 stone 12years ago ( that's 5 years before I had BC) and have often wondered if I'd have found the lump when I was "bigger". Mind you, I'm still generously endowed - apart from a missing bit now!

oh interesting elegran - you are that woman in 2000...
I wonder ariadne if touch-look-feel works a lot better for us moderately boobed rather than generously boobed? I wonder if anyone has ever done a study?

Polly - how's it going? Chemo is awful, isn't it? But, better than not having it, I feel! You're so right about mammograms too; part of my Work with Cancer Research UK is educating / convincing women to take advantage of them, as well as "look, touch, feel". Do hope you're coping - sounds as if you are. xx

Yes JessM I had a lump picked up on a mammogram which I had no symptoms of whatsoever.

In fact I expected the mammograms to stop when I was 65, but a couple of months before my 66th birthday I got the usual invitation and appointment - it had been extended to 70. So I turned up for flattening as usual, was not even looking out for the results, as I had never had any problems.

I was recalled to the clinic for a closer look - maybe technical problems, I thought. A repeat was inconclusive so they gave me an ultrasound scan, and then I learnt that there was an "anomaly" which could be a small tumour. I biopsy proved that to be the case and it was malignant, and removed successfully.

I am quite generously boobed, and the tumour was quite deep, so I would not have noticed it until it was pretty big.

Keep up the mammograms, I say. If the big C were not such a bogeyman, but just another medical problem to be found and dealt with early on, people would not be so distressed.

Mishap - a similar thing happened to a friend of mine - totally clear mammogram then within a few weeks a lump which turned out to be aggressive BC. Agree that self examination is vital. (She is doing very well 4 years later by the way)

I just looked up what Cochrane Collaboration actually said:

This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings.

This site is the best place to look for impartial reviews whether it is mainstream or alternative health info you are looking at.

A sobering quote.
Is there anyone here who had a lump picked up by a ROUTINE mammo rather than one investigating symptoms you had noticed?

If polly if your GP had just trusted your judgement and referred you to the NHS then that would have been diagnosed just as promptly. Slightly strange thing to do maybe? But better than a total brush off...
Anyway good luck with the treatment. It is great that they have got it while it was still so tiny.

Hi gracesmum

Yes it does sound very neurotic to have had a private mammo! I've had a history on my left boob: chronic mastitis with our daughter, permanent thickening of tissue as a result, needle biopsy (clear - but walnut sized lump appeared over 4 days full of liquid), surgical removal of thickened tissue (benign) oh boring boring - but always it has ached from time to time. My other boob is as good as gold. I think of them as non-identical twins: the good boring one and the naughty little sister.

So, mid-June I was feeling so happy - our grand daughter + mum and dad staying with us whilst their kitchen was being done, our son and d-in-law about to have their first, our daughter & s-in-law expecting another. And one aching boob. So I went to the GP who said there was NOTHING wrong but that, for "people like me" (middle class, SW London, neurotic) they could fix me up with a private mammo ..... would I like this?

Bingo! 1 cm, early early, lymph glands ok but my FISH test came back with the unwelcome news that it's an aggressive sort. Lumpectomy, 6 weeks' radio and am now 3/4 of the way through chemo before starting Herceptin for a year.

Ladeez, don't miss your mammo!!!!! It has, quite literally, saved my life. I may be bald but I'm going to be a gran for a long time yet.

This is a vexed question.
My sister had a lumpectomy (2 actually, as they did not take away enough first time) at age 38 + radiotherapy.
Last year, aged 51, she had a regular mammogram which was clear.
A few days later she found a tiny lump in her breast - same one as before - and thought it was probably nothing, as she had just had the all clear. However, she did have the sense to go to the doc and finished up with a mastectomy - it was a new promary tumour.
I think the message is to have the mammogram if offered, but not to stop observation and examination.

It's not the false positives that we need to worry about - it's the false negatives. Out of interest, Polly, what made you go for a private mammo?

I see they are again the doubting the cost-effectiveness of screening, because of the number of false positives.

Next thing, they will be advising against all regular health checks - after all, most of them find nothing wrong, and a lot of the anomalies that are found need further tests !

Exactly - so worth it. (I have one and a half!)

What rubbish - it saved my Mother, it saved a friend. I have regular scans - but at least it is only 1 boob!

I had treatment in 1997/98. January 1997 I decided to "get fit". On a Sunday morning in June a him indoors was at work I decided I would do the house work (I worked full time) in my nightie and then have a shower. I therefore put my contact lenses in and did the house through before having a shower. Because I could actually see myself in a mirror (I am short sighted and usually shower before I put in Contact lenses) I preened myself turning this way and that and congratulated myself on the fact that "getting fit" had worked and the body looked better. Fate does like to laugh at you sometimes! I noticed a dimple in my left breast right under the arm and which felt like a hard blackberry. Knew what it was immediately, told myself not to be silly and worry, but just knew. Went to the Doctors asap and had treatment within days. Unfortunately the lumpectomy was not sufficient and I had a full mastectomy with lymph clearance a week later The surgeon had said to me before the first surgery that he only had my consent to a lumpectomy and I wish I had picked up on this and told him if he found more he had my consent to to whatever he considered best. As it had been less than 24 hours since I had received the news, my brain was not really working. I then went on to have chemo and radio therapy over the following 6 months, took Tamoxifen for 5 years. My surgeon was wonderful - I way him recently in the street and be remember my name etc and gave me a big hug.

EVERYONE who has breast cancer should read Jane Plant's book "Your Life in Your Hands". She is an earth scientist (geologist), a highly reputable scientist who has been awarded the CBE, and has also had breast cancer which has recurred a number of times. Knowing that in China and Japan the incidence of breast cancer is very low, she took it on herself to research the probably link of diet in both breast and prostate cancer. This book is the result, suggesting that the consumption of dairy products may play a substantial role in the incidence of these Western civilisation cancers. The book is interesting, informative, NOT AT ALL cranky, very helpful and full of good suggestions.

2003 was my year - had the lot including chemo. Feeling great now (always said with fingers firmly crossed) apart from the ** knee, of course! My OG calls us the "sisterhood" and we are. X

Without routine mammo my cancer would never have been found-even the surgeon described it as 'subtle' and had trouble feeling it.I had to have a wire put in before the op so they knew where it was.
I agree about exposure to x-rays and when/if I get to 5 years I'd go back from annual to triennial screening.I also refuse ct scans unless I have symptoms in the future.

There is always an ongoing debate about screening, including does the x ray exposure cause more harm than screening does good. I think Tamoxifen was introduced during this time period which may have muddied the waters. Also they keep changing protocols. I would probably have had some chemo if I had had my cancer removed a few years later.

Did you spot their typo "precancerous legions in the mild ducts" - mmm I think they mean lesions, not rows of tiny Roman soldiers don't you. Can't get the journalists these days!

Sorry, did not click the automatic links button.
What do you all think about this article?
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8668725/Breast-cancer-screening-has-little-detectable-impact.html

The W H O International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) estimates that there is a 35 per cent reduction in mortality - but a group of international cancer experts say they can find no evidence that screening has led to faster falls in deaths rates from the disease.

What do you all think about this article?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8668725/Breast-cancer-screening-has-little-detectable-impact.html

The W H O International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) estimates that there is a 35 per cent reduction in mortality - but a group of international cancer experts say they can find no evidence that screening has led to faster falls in deaths rates from the disease.