Archived News of the Week

A New look at Cancer & More Big Pharma Shenanigans

When I was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 41, I remember to this day what an older woman said to me. I was saying things like "Boy wasn't it lucky that I had that baseline mammogram at just the right time?" and "Wow, how lucky am I to have caught it so early." And "Thank God for something called early detection and mammograms!" My older friend, an indomitable, no-nonsense woman from Germany just looked at me and said, "Well, did you ever think you might have had your baseline mammogram at just the wrong time?" Even though I was much too full of shock and terror that day to take it in, I have thought quite often of what Heide said to me. Then, lo and behold, many healthy years later, I found some intriguing research that might support my prescient friend's statement that terrible day of my diagnosis.

Of course, who knows whose cancer will be the one to go away? And herein lies the rather large rub. However, it is my belief, as you know, that we endure too many preventive tests and are subsequently over-diagnosed and over-treated, so it made my heart sing to hear mainstream medical people suggest that perhaps, especially in breast cancer, it "could be possible for some women" (my underlinings, but note the tentative and doubt filled language...) to "opt for watchful waiting, monitoring the tumor in their breast to see whether it grows."

Regarding the research in Norway , there are numbers I could quote here, but they are by and large boring, as numbers tend to be. Suffice it to say that even though statistics can be easily manipulated, the numbers were interesting to say the least and here is the very bottom line: The women who had regular mammograms had 22% more cancers. Go figure.

My hope is that this research will slow the usual treatment approach a bit. This might give the body a chance to take charge more, rather than having strident and ofttimes dangerous outside forces calling the shots. I am not making a recommendation for you to have less frequent diagnostic tests, especially if that is what you feel comfortable doing. I am just asking you to take a look at some pretty powerful research.

I know as well as I am sitting here on this cold and wintry day that my wise and elegant immune system is constantly monitoring every one of my millions upon millions of cells for any and all atypical cells. And I know from my research that cancer cells come and cancer cells go, depending on the patency of immune system, the amount of stress in our lives, the targeted supplements we take and yes, our belief systems. We are actually - all of us - defeating cancer every single day and it makes much more sense to me now what Heide said. Maybe I did have my baseline mammogram at the wrong time. And then again, maybe I didn't. It's a hard call to make.

How do you know when Big Pharma is lying? When their lips are moving.

Another study called the ALLHAT, organized by the federal government, came up with this: "Generic pills for high blood pressure which had been in use since the 1950's and cost only pennies) worked better than newer drugs that were up to 20 times as expensive." So, a no brainer, right? Just get Joe the Plumber off of his expensive hypertension drugs and onto an old time diuretic called hydrochlorothiazide, right?

Well, no. It's just not happening. Why? Because it is very difficult 1) to muzzle Big Pharma's incredibly powerful lobby 2) to persuade MD's to change their medical habits since drug reps routinely stop by with boxes of chocolates and Mercedes Benzes 3) to halt the abundance of advertising on television and print media about the efficacy of the "more expensive" blood pressure treatment drugs like calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors.

Even though there has been "no real evidence that the newer pills were better, diuretics fell to 27% of the hypertension prescriptions. . . which added an estimated $3.1 billion to the nation's medical bill." (Those profits are not in my pocket! Or yours. Guess whose?)

Drug companies have responded to the ALLHAT study by heavily marketing their newer drugs and have even "paid speakers to publicly interpret the ALLHAT results in ways that made their products look better." (New York Times, 11/28/08) One member of the ALLHAT committee received more than $200,000 from Pfizer, largely in speaking fees, the year after the ALLHAT results were in.

Just be aware of this and if and when your MD suggests a newer and more expensive drug for a condition that is already being treated and handled, please question him or her.

No statement or content in this web site shall be construed as offering diagnosis, cure, mitigation or prevention of any disease. Anyone having questions regarding the content of this site should contact their own health care provider for verification.