Hi All
a friend I was treating when she had repeated breast and then lymph cancer has been going through genetic screening, and has been told that her chance of breast cancer in the remaining breast is 1 in 5

HELP!!

Can anyone enlighten me on this prognosis

She recognises that if she has the remaining breast removed, the cancer is likely to return elsewhere. She is terrified.

Her mother had breast cancer 20 years ago, and has just died , after starting with cancer of the spleen about a year ago, and ending with a tumour on her neck. Her mother only wanted allopathic care and treatment.

Thanks

Caroline :-)

Thanks for all you fascinating replies :-)

It's funny how it is refreshing to hear that we all have cancerous cells in us, it just takes one thing to tip the balance... My allopathic father taught me that one at a young age!

I am glad to say that my friend has a pretty healthy diet. And yes, I know that with homoeopathy etc we can do a lot for her. I think that what is underlying my concerns is the question "How accurate is genetic screening?" What proof is there that she is in reality more likely to get another breast cancer?

I want to give her some information to help her calm down. She has good reason to be concerned, with her H/O cancer.

How does Andre Seine approach cancer? I have a colleague who has used Ramakrishnam's method at least 3 times now and she and her patients are very happy with it

Kindest thoughts

Caroline :-) xxx

As someone once pointed out , there are only 2 certain things in this life - death and taxes.
ALL allopathic prgnosis should be treated with a large measure of scepticism.

A contributory factor here is that stress can cause cancer and certainly in this case make the prediction self fulfilling.

One thing here is that often problems in the breast originate in the uterus. Has this patient had uterine problems treated allopathically?.

Often surgical proceedures on the uterus are where the cancer is created.

As Compton Burnett observed; one of his ex patients was operated on for breast cancer . Each time the cancer revoval was successful . The last time it was carried out the operation was a success - but unfortunately the the patient died .

Someone once observed that the body produces a symptom [which could be cancer ] in order to reduce the internal stress/pressure.

If you then remove the symptom without curing the root of the problem -- in the Hahnemannian sense-- , then the body takes one of two coureses.
A] it reproduces the symptom in order to release the pressure..OR

B] it deals with the problem in another way. It may create some hypersensitivity [ sight , hearing , smell, }

or it may put the problem in another physical area [ heart, liver, brain etc.]

I often think of the story of the cancer patient who was given six months to live . She realised all her assets with a view to spending that 6 months as happily as possible. Went to live on a small island in the sun. five years later she was still living there .

Hi Caroline,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caroline Thanks for all you fascinating replies :-)

Too bad that they were all private - or is the server once again allotting quota of what we receive??? [ADMIN: Nope!]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caroline It's funny how it is refreshing to hear that we all have cancerous cells in us, it just takes one thing to tip the balance... My allopathic father taught me that one at a young age!

Well, I personally should not take the responsibility to advise on that base. We do not know at all how much of all this does play any part in the development of cancer (e.g. had she eaten a different diet before she got the cancer?). We have all cancerous cells, but what makes them develop into "cancer" - no one knows; neither homeopaths nor regular medicine. It is jus all speculation, according to which school of thinking you belong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caroline I think that what is underlying my concerns is the question "How accurate is genetic screening?" What proof is there that she is in reality more likely to get another breast cancer?

This is what I have been thinking about since I read your original mail - and I think that there is no proof whatsoever and that the base for this assertion must be quite slim.

Consider:

Let us say they have found a specific genetic set-up in breast-cancer patients - let's even say that this set-up is found in ALL those patients.

This means nothing - right?

Not as long as they have not done *extensive* screenings of patients of advanced ages that did NOT develop breast cancer.

I doubt that this has been done so far.

For the presence of that genetic make-up to mean anything, the women who did NOT develop breast-cancer would have all or to a very significant degree be without that genetic set-up.

If that screening had been done, if that were recognized as fact, women could go for a check on this set-up and know whether they run any risk pf developing breast-cancer at some time in their lives.

This should have been a sensational discovery - has anyone heard about such a break-through in diagnosis?

But even if that were so: I consider it well-nigh impossible that such screening can have been done for the probability of someone getting cancer of the other breast!

I think that it might be established that people who have had cancer of one breast are at higher risk of getting cancer of the other breast than the rest of the population are to develop it at all; this the probably know from experience. But I very much doubt that there has been time to evaluate this in connection with genetic screening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caroline I want to give her some information to help her calm down. She has good reason to be concerned, with her H/O cancer.

I may be dead wrong, of course. I have no specific knowledge - but it just seems like common sense.

Think it through yourself - may be what I said is useful for your own considerations.

Regards

Luise

isn't this thread waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context for this
group
i've listened and been patient .........but i really don't think our
mandate
is to debate/quote the gospels for more than a couple of days.

bonnie

A little correction is due here:

We don't have cancer cells. Cancer is the uncontrolled growth of cells. So, all of us have cells which grow. When the growth is out of control, that is cancer.

I believe your friend can beat the genetic screening with the AUR protocol. He even has a regimen for families that have a history of cancer, what is called genetic pre-disposition. He says that it can be beaten. I think he is right and has proven it himself. His sister & brother (both homeoapths) died of cancer, so it can be assumed that cancer is in his family, he has beaten it and I pray that he stays way.

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.