The last advice from Mark Stengler was bad but this one’s bad.
At Stage I and II we have a 95% survival rate for Breast Cancer. At Stage III it drops and obviously at Stage IV it’s low survival due to metastasis.
But with our actual scanning techniques we have detected cancers earlier and earlier. This is from a newsletter Mark Stengler (naturopath and religious quack) has been pushing.
Listen to the advice dished out on TV every day, and you might think mammograms are the best and only way to screen for breast cancer. But they’re not the only way, of course, and they’re certainly far from perfect when it comes to screening for this deadly cancer.
Mammograms are the gold standard of screening. Cost effective, quick and mobile the mammogram brings screening to the masses at a sensible cost.
Each MRI is many times more expensive than each Mammogram, takes more time and requires more skill to interpret. You can do a dozen mammograms in the time it takes to do an MRI and for cheaper and faster. In addition the mammogram machine is more mobile. MRI machines need purpose built construction to function rather than cheap lead shielding.
Now, new research shows just how far from perfect they really are: They’re often no better than regular breast exams.
No they aren’t. Breast exams are a good self screening system. They are fantastic to detect fast growing tumours inbetween mammograms. When you self detect you will see a doctor rather than some Stengleresque quack (He’s not a real doctor).
The doctor will palpate your breast and look for the mass. He can determine if the mass has any attachments to skin or the muscles below and if there are any involvement of the lymph nodes. He will then confirm the idea via a mammogram and a biopsy. Either FNAC or a Biopsy will determine via a trained pathologist if the tissue is cancerous. It is NOT the Mammogram that has final say. The Biopsy also tells you if the cells are oestrogen sensitive.
Stengler lies. Stengler tries to make it seem that we use mammograms as a diagnostic method.
In the study, some 90,000 Canadian women were either given regular mammograms or told to avoid the screening completely and get regular breast exams from a trained nurse instead.
Over 25 years, both groups had the exact same rate of death from breast cancer.
This is incorrect. Mammograms do not come WITHOUT clinical exam. Mammograms detect smaller cancers and any palpable mass would be detected by the mammogram ANYWAYS. What the mammogram detects is smaller ones. And clinical examination is subjective.
In every test Mammograms always beat Clinical Examination for detection, staging and survival. It’s common sense, we detect smaller tumours by Mammogram which is a lower staging.
I actually have the BMJ article which Stengler is misquoting. Do you want to know why this mortality exists?
Annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is freely available. Overall, 22% (106/484) of screen detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial.
This is the conclusion of the study.
When we consider modern advances of medical technology, the mortality for later stages of cancer have fallen to the point that late stage cancers are just as survivable as early stage cancer.
Now here is the thing. Neo-adjuvant therapy is great. Just simply great, it saves a lot of lives. But it sucks to be on, it is chemotherapy. What it is, is a method for increasing the survivability of Stage 3 cancers.
Stengler thinks it’s acceptable to UPRATE cancers by a stage just because we have a method of treating Stage 3s. Outside the boundaries of western medicine this would translate to a marked increase in fatalities for the examination only group.
So far, that’s a tie — but if you’re thinking “better safe than sorry” and planning to schedule a mammogram anyway, think again.
Mark’s a big fan of “Christian” medicine. His cancer cure is a “Biblical Diet”.
I must point out I just demonstrated how fantastically Stengler has lied about the research. The research shows survival rates but that’s not important. Treatment modalities too.
What Stengler wants is more expensive treatment with greater side effects rather than simpler. Stengler’s plans would also require more radical and total mastectomies than segmentectomies and local excisions.
While both groups had the same death rate, the treatment rates were vastly different, with women given mammograms far more likely to get treated for breast cancer.
No they were not. Straight up any breast lump that can be palpated has to be scanned in order to determine what it is. You don’t just leave it be.
Since the extra treatments didn’t add up to extra lives saved, that means they were for nothing — and these weren’t just instances, either. The numbers add up to more than 1 in 5 cancer treatments being entirely unnecessary.
And this demonstrates how bad religious faith healing is. The naturopathy Mark flogs is couched in religion and validates itself and protects itself not by attempting to be science but through the divine regimen of an angry vengeful god. To Mark’s followers we are not scientists but heretics leading people down the path of scientifically proven healthcare and evidence based medicine.
And if you include treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (which usually results in a mastectomy), that number jumps to one in three.
Ductal Carcinoma in Situ is a pre-cancerous lesion.
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is the most common type of non-invasive breast cancer. Ductal means that the cancer starts inside the milk ducts, DCIS is called “non-invasive” because it hasn’t spread beyond the milk duct into any normal surrounding breast tissue. DCIS isn’t life-threatening, but having DCIS can increase the risk of developing an invasive breast cancer later on.
A DCIS has a high chance of becoming a proper full blown cancer. The chance of conversion is around 1 in 3. With lumpectomy there makes it drop to 1 in 9. And if you include radiation it’s 1 in 18.
A DCIS has an advantage in that we can conserve more breast tissue which allows for better prosthesis post surgery. Your breasts will look more natural.
Mark wants you to risk a 1 in 3 vs a 1 in 18.
There are other ways to screen for cancer that allow doctors to get a clearer view of the breast and make more informed decisions about which tumors should be treated and which are best left alone.
I recommend ultrasound, MRIs or thermography.
Ultrasounds only tell you if a mass is cystic or dense, it actually requires a lot more trained personnel to work and the imaging can miss a mass. In addition? It’s a subjective diagnosis here. Unlike the Mammogram where you will see a clear issue and can always confirm diagnosis via biopsy.
MRIs are straight more expensive and only slightly more effective than a mammogram and less accessible and again require a trained radiologist for diagnosis. It’s slower and fewer people get coverage thanks to this.
Thermography straight does not work as effectively and is not clinically proven to work. Stengler here is straight up giving bad information.
The method that works best for you may depend on your risk factors for the disease such as family history, the density of your breast and more. And of you have cancer, remember you have options — including time-tested cures that can be found hidden in the pages of the Bible (if you know where to look).
He means starve and eat a biblical diet that seems surprisingly high in New World food.
It’s true — and you can learn more right here.
This is murderous information. This is an attempt to cause healthy women to not undergo screening and to get people to not seek real medical care. Stengler is a vulture who preys on the sick and the dying and relies on them to drive his practice.