Breast Cancer Awareness – Revisited

I published this one year ago in deference to October being Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Since nothing has changed, I feel the message is important enough to bear repeating. The unfortunate situation is that all things pink, including ribbons, has come to symbolize a complete lack of interest in achieving a better approach to breast cancer. The Susan Komen foundation is a farce, and the hundreds of millions of dollars her organization has received has done absolutely nothing to improve women’s ability to deal with breast cancer.

 

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  There is no debate about the fact that women should be aware of breast cancer since it is approaching epidemic proportions. At the turn of the last century, the incidence of breast cancer was about 1 in every 94 women. It is now 1 in every 8 women.

The problem with devoting a month to breast cancer awareness, is that it emphasizes the wrong approach to this problem. Would it not make more sense to promote a different concept and proclaim this month as Breast Cancer Prevention Month. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, they do not allow preventive medicine in this country. This statement is not made lightly. If you consider that there has been no decrease in the incidence of cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, obesity, etc., in this country over the last 60 years, it  is fairly safe to say we are not preventing disease. The one program in place that is touted as America’s answer to preventive medicine is the annual promotion of flu shots. The problem here is that flu shots do not prevent the flu and are more likely to cause it.

Women running around with  pink ribbons promoting breast cancer awareness are likely to recommend mammograms as part of the awareness program.  However, we all know that mammograms do not prevent breast cancer, and, as many people realize, the radiation actually increases a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer.

Obviously, the most valid and worthwhile approach to breast cancer is to prevent it in the first place. However, it is not difficult to embrace the idea that breast cancer is an extremely lucrative proposition to the medical community, especially if you include the cost of breast biopsies, surgery, hospitalization, chemotherapy, radiation, anesthesia, post-op care, reconstructive surgery, cat scans, MRIs, blood tests, plus I am sure many other modalities. I am not suggesting that breast cancer is good for the business of medicine, I will leave that idea for the reader to decide.

Once breast cancer has spread, perhaps the only chance for survival is to take a natural, alternative approach. Radiation and chemotherapy destroy the immune system, probably insuring an ultimate demise. In addition, Tamoxifen, the most commonly used drug to prevent recurrence of breast cancer, causes two different types of uterine cancers. The only known cause of uterine cancer is estrogen. I am waiting for someone to explain to me how Tamoxifen can prevent breast cancer.

There are actually two very easy and effective modalities that women can incorporate to prevent almost 100% of breast cancers – which I will get to in a bit, I promise. But first, the question has to be asked, what accounts for this tremendous upsurge in the incidence of breast cancer? The answer is that much of it can be attributed to the omnipresence of the hormone called estrogen. Estrogen is a known carcinogenic agent, and is known to cause at least six different cancers in women.

At the same time that women have been exposed to higher amounts of estrogen, there is now a worldwide epidemic of low progesterone levels, which is the hormone that protects women from estrogen.

In this regard, is it possible that the widespread use of BC pills can be blamed on the higher incidence of breast cancer? It is not so much that they contain estrogen and often a synthetic progestogen that is also known to cause breast cancer, but more importantly they prevent a woman from ovulating. It is during ovulation that a woman releases a hormone called progesterone, which protects women from getting estrogen-induced cancers.

In addition, estrogen is the most commonly replaced hormone after the menopause, a fact that is actually scary. Women often subject themselves to incredibly high doses of estradiol, the strongest estrogen, in the form of pellets inserted beneath the skin. The only need for this would be if a woman is trying to get pregnant – not a likely scenario after the menopause. And it is extremely rare that these pellet pushers ever protect women with the right type of progesterone.

In addition, you have to add into the equation that estrogen is used in chickens and cattle to fatten them. I have always found this fact interesting because it is illegal to inject anything that is a known carcinogenic agent into an animal that will be used for human consumption . Is it possible that economics has a greater priority than human health? And don’t forget BPA and estrogen in plastics.

As I alluded to before, there are two things a woman can do to prevent breast cancer (and many other cancers, as well). The first is to utilize at least a 5% progesterone cream and the second is to supplement with high-dose vitamin D3 – at least 10,000 IU per day of a powdered preparation, not a gelcap. You will also need to take about 180 mcg of vitamin K2 to prevent vitamin D3 from putting calcium into blood vessels. You can get all these products on my website: http://www.plattwellness.com. Those women wondering what to do about the menopause, please read my book “The Miracle of Bio-identical Hormones”.

And for those people who do wish to prevent the flu, please note that vitamin D3 in that strength prevents every flu there is, and every dementia as well.