Giant Study Finds New Blood Test That Can Predict Breast Cancer Five Years Before It Develops

(source)(source) The world is in desperate need of a new way to detect breast cancer. Why? Because there is a wealth of scientific data concluding that mammograms are not, as the CDC claims, the most effective method of doing so. In fact, having a mammogram is likely the last thing you want to do if you have breast cancer.

There has been a growing concern with women receiving these mammograms despite not being particularly effective, often leading to “false positives” in many cases. A recent study involving 13,000 women found that screening for breast cancer using mammography misses thousands of cases of breast cancer a year, and what’s even more alarming is the fact that other women have been diagnosed with the disease when they don’t even have it. It’s actually quite a serious problem that many people aren’t aware of, and experts have even suggested that the procedure itself can cause breast cancer, or worsen an already existing case. You can find out why, and more about that topic HERE. Researchers at the University of Copenhagen tracked 57,000 patients over a period of 20 years, taking blood samples from each and every one. Two groups of women were compared, all of whom were healthy at the beginning of the study, with half of them being diagnosed with breast cancer within seven years of providing their first blood sample.

These samples were compared with the ones who remained healthy. (source)(source) The researchers were able to predict with a staggering 80 percent accuracy which patients would be affected by breast cancer simply by looking at the metabolic profiles they built from the blood samples. Sure, this may not be 100 percent accurate, but it seems (so far) to be a much better option than mammograms. Early detection is key in fighting cancer. According to Laura Donnelly at the Telegraph, who broke the story, the test works by “measuring all of the compounds in the blood to build a ‘metabolic profile’ of an individual, in order to detect changes in the way chemicals are processed, during a pre-cancerous stage.” (source) “The method is better than mammography, which can only be used when the disease has already occurred.” – Lead researcher, Professor Rasmus Bro to the Telegraph (source) It’s a concept that’s been used before, by Harvard University for example, to predict a person’s chances for developing different forms of cancer by looking for specific mutations. (source) “The potential is we can detect a disease like breast cancer much earlier than today. This is important as it is easier to treat if you discover it early. In the long term, it will probably also be possible to use similar models to predict other diseases.” Prof Lars Ove Dragsted, a professor of biomedicine in the University’s Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports (source) Today we are bombarded with the idea of donating constantly to cancer charities in the hopes of finding a cure, and there’s nothing wrong with this desire to help. What is concerning, however, is the fact that we are constantly emphasizing the search for a cure, with little to no attention being paid to cancer prevention. That being said, millions of people across the world seem to be losing their faith in cancer charities, and for good reason. “Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” – Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994). He is considered one of the most important scientists in history. (source) Truth is, if a pharmaceutical company can patent and make money from a treatment, then that’s what we will get. It’s what we’ve always gotten from them. When it comes to cancer, we can expect a treatment that we have to keep using over and over again. As for names like Rene Caisse, or Max Gerson, who have suggested supposed cures, they are made to look like complete fools by the American Medical Association And in the prevention conversation, it’s never mentioned that the pesticides sprayed on our food have been linked to cancer (among other things), and studies have shown that when eating foods which have not been sprayed with pesticides, an adult body reduces their pesticide exposure by 90 percent. (source)(source) This is just one of many examples of our toxic environment.

There is a reason why cancer statistics are staggering and continue to rise exponentially. It is no longer a stroke of bad luck but a high probability – one which can be drastically lowered by changing your lifestyle. (source) Things like aluminum in our deodorant and toxins in our cleaning products are never factored into the equation. And the reality of GMOs causing cancer in studies done on animals (read more about that here) is simply ignored. This is why it’s important to do your research. That being said, you can make better choices. Another factor when it comes to cancer prevention is alternative treatments, which are on the rise today. For example, if we look at cannabis, a multitude of studies have clearly shown the anti-tumour effects of the plant for decades. Despite this fact, no clinical trials have ever been conducted. Ask yourself, why is that so? Similarly, according to studies published in Life Sciences, Cancer Letters and Anticancer Drugs, artemesinin, a derivative of the wormwood plant commonly used in Chinese medicine, can kill off cancer cells, and do it at a rate of 12,000 cancer cells for every healthy cell (you can read more about that here).

There seem to be dozens upon dozens of treatments which show great promise, and treatments which people have decided to use for themselves with great success, yet receive absolutely no attention from the medical industry. One great example is Mykala Comstock, you can read more about her story here, and there are many of these stories now emerging. Just a little something to think about. Thanks for reading. .

Read the full article at the original website

References:

• http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11306-015-0793-8#page-1
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11542425/Simple-blood-test-for-breast-cancer-could-be-more-accurate-than-mammograms.html
• http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/11/pre-cancerous-state-found-in-blood/
• http://nationalpress.org/images/uploads/programs/CAN2009_Marshall.pdf
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511400067X
• http://hs.boisestate.edu/blog/2015/02/09/ccurl/
• http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer