In the September 17, 2004, Medscape Medical News issue, the Editor's Note says "The era of using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels as a screening test for prostate cancer is over, according to the results of a study published in the October issue of The Journal of Urology." Yet, this test is still heavily relied on all over the country as a diagnostic tool to determine whether or not a biopsy is warranted.
Dr. Thomas Stamey, the scientist that originally discovered the PSA test said after over 20 years of use, "the test is no longer finding significant cancers". He also said that in a lot of cases, a PSA test result between 2 and 20 (not 10!), is now unrelated to cancer but is related to the size of the prostate. It should also be noted that many men with prostate cancer have PSA levels well within the range of normal, and many men with skyrocketing PSA levels do not have cancer (based on needle biopsy results).
Another healthcare pioneer, William Campbell Douglass, II, M.D., has referred to PSA tests and their follow up biopsies as "the mainstream's slash-and-burn approach to prostate cancer." The slashing and burning isn't caused by the test, but rather it is caused by doctors who react inappropriately to the test (performing needless biopsies).
Many doctors recommend a biopsy of the prostate when the PSA is elevated. However, evidence shows that a great number of these prostate biopsies are completely unnecessary. There was a Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center study in which researchers tested the reliability of a single PSA result. Five blood samples were collected over a four year period from nearly 1,000 men over the age of 60. More than 20% of the subjects had PSA levels that would have prompted many doctors to recommend a biopsy. Half of those men had follow-up tests with normal PSA levels.
A biopsy can result in bleeding and infection. Even without infection occurring, a biopsy is an injury to the body. This injured site can become cancer prone because of the injury (see "Our Magnificient Bodies", in The Lakeshore Guardian December, 2006, issue). Remember also, that fungi lives off of dead and dying tissue and thrives at injured locations of the body (weak links), and fungus is a precursor to cancer. Further, many fungal infections are mistaken for cancer.
The mammogram test for breast cancer also has flaws. First and most obvious is radiation, and radiation causes cancer. Yearly mammograms are recommended by the medical establishment for women over 40 years old. Breast cancer is most common in woman over 40 years old. That isn't just coincidence. Some argue that because it is more common after 40 that the test should be done. But don't forget that radiation causes cancer so it isn't as simple as saying most women get breast cancer after 40. Mammograms can actually prompt an existing cancer to spread.
Many doctors may argue that the radiation from a mammogram is less than the radiation received by an airline passenger flying cross-country. However, consider the difference between the entire body being exposed during an airline flight versus having all of that radiation focused on one area (the breast). The truth is that the actual radiation exposure during a mammogram is about one RAD (radiation absorbed dose). That's about 1,000 times more radiation than a chest x-ray. These are all reasons why to rethink getting a yearly mammogram just as a routine precaution. There are times where it may be necessary and a life saving diagnostic tool so I am , of course, not indicating mammograms should be completely avoided.
When being faced with a possible biopsy, talk with your doctor about a cancer test called the AMAS test. The AMAS Cancer test is a blood test based on levels of a specific antibody that has been shown to be elevated in a wide range of cancer types. Unfortunately, your doctor may have never heard of the test or may quickly dismiss it. This is where you get to educate your doctor.
Oncolab Inc., the developer of the AMAS test, currently processes test results using samples from blood drawn at independent labs around North America. Their Web site is www.amascancertest.com or call them at 800-9CA-TEST. As in all clinical laboratory tests, this test by itself is not diagnostic of the presence or absence of cancer. The results can only be assessed as an aid to diagnosis and detect (the same with a mammogram, PSA test, and other tumor marker tests, etc.).
I would consider taking the AMAS test prior to a biopsy. I would also consider the AMAS test if a biopsy was positive for cancer (especially if I was going to do chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery since fungus can be mistaken for cancer).
Of course, work with your doctor, but remember you are in charge. Time and time again oncologists have "fired" their patients for not conforming. But this is your life, not theirs; find another doctor. I was once poked right between the eyes by a doctor because I said "no" to the recommendations of chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. He was so visibly upset with me that he poked me between the eyes and called me a dummie! I know though, that in his mind, he saw a death sentence for me (not true at all!). Many doctors are doing the best they can but do not have all the information, or need to ignore certain facts just to keep their medical license.
Cancer is a systemic disorder. It is in the whole body and it simply manifests itself in a particular organ or site. Typically, where it manifests is a "weak link", a site of injury. This is why cutting out an organ is not a cure. Unfortunately, many survivors of surgery and chemotherapy have a relapse after five years. They didn't remove the cause.
Cancer is an anaerobic organism. It lives without oxygen. It thrives in an acidic, low oxygen, dark, moist environment (perfect conditions for fungus!). Cancer feeds on glucose and secretes lactic acid as a by-product (just like fungus!). The liver then converts the lactic acid back into glucose which yields a viscous cycle of the cancer feeding itself (it is imperative to stop eating sugar!).
Knowing why and how the body got into this state (know the cause!) is the key. When I think of cancer, I always think fungus first. Following an anti-fungal program has proven to be a method to renew and rejuvenate the body when cancer (or other disease) is present.
Our magnificent bodies know how to heal and work hard to accomplish this day and night. We need to remove the cause, heal the injury, and nourish the body - then watch the great and marvelous things our bodies can accomplish (natural healing)!
References:
- http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/489474
- http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealerts/ea200601/ea20060125.html
- AV Constantini, MD, Heinrich Wieland, MD, LarsI. Qvick, MD, "FungalBioic Series: Breast Cancer Hope at Last"
*DISCLAIMER: These statements are the opinion of the writer based on extensive research. The information provided here is intended for educational purposes only. It is not meant to either directly or indirectly diagnose, give medical advice or prescribe treatment. Unless specifically referenced, the information has not been scientifically validated or approved by any government or regulatory agency. Please consult with your physician or other licensed health care professional for medical diagnosis and treatment.
