Mammograms – Yes, No, Maybe So?

by Suzanne Somers 11/20/2009 9:00:00 AM
Earlier this year I interviewed Dr. Russell Blaylock, an oncologist, brain surgeon, and neuroscientist, for my book, KNOCKOUT: Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer and How to Prevent Getting it in the First Place. One of the topics we discussed was the risk of radiation exposure from yearly mammograms–a procedure designed to PROTECT women with early detection of breast cancer. Blaylock states the radiation we receive from yearly mammograms actually increases our risk. “The most conservative estimate is 1 percent per year. Another estimate is 3 percent a year. Some radiologists say it’s even higher than that.” (KNOCKOUT, p. 150)

If we were good little rule followers, and started having our mammograms at 40, that means by the time we are 50 we may have increased our risk of breast cancer by as much as 30%! Of course, when I printed this information in my book, I was deemed a heretic for quoting Blaylock because this information could “damage women’s health” by confusing them about the importance of early detection from mammograms.

Fast forward to a few days ago and we have the release of the results from the U.S. Preventive Task Force, conducted by 16 independent scientific heavyweights, who concur with the information from Dr. Blaylock. The task force is now stating that women should NOT have yearly mammograms until the age of 50, and only every two years. They say the scientific research shows the risks outweigh the benefits. For the complete report, see Annals of Internal Medicine.

Then on Wednesday, Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, invalidated the independent report, along with the American Cancer Society, stating the scientific research is incorrect. Hmm. How many radiologists have invested in the technology for yearly mammograms? How much revenue will be lost if we eliminate this yearly appointment?

On the other side of the issue, there are legitimate cases of breast cancer for women under 50! What are the alternatives if we still want early detection, without the increased risk? Blaylock states, “If I were a woman, I’d never have a mammogram. The best thing is to get screened with an MRI. Thermogram is also good because we know tumors are hot and benign lesions tend to be cool.” (KNOCKOUT, p. 152)

Our next push will be making sure insurance covers breast MRI and thermogram. I continue to put myself out there as a dart board for the medical community. Their “darts” are sharp, “Don’t listen to her quackery. She’s a stupid actress. Since when does Suzanne Somers have a medical degree?” I am not a doctor, but I happen to have access to some of the most incredible medical minds in the world–and I print their opinions to make sure they are heard. So may I just relish in the validation of the material I have put out in KNOCKOUT? And may I just be a little immature for a moment and say, “I TOLD YOU SO!” Ah, that felt good.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Somers

For more information go to SuzanneSomers.com

Currently rated 5.0 by 13 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: ,

Cancer

Chemosensitivity Tests – Why Does Big Pharma Know About Them and WE Don’t?

by Suzanne Somers 10/30/2009 3:30:00 PM
After a show at ShopNBC, my family took me out to dinner for my birthday at a fancy restaurant in Minneapolis, called The Kitchen (spectacular, by the way!). A man at the table across from us started by buying two very nice bottles of wine for our table. By the end of the evening, he decided to buy the entire dinner! I went to his table to thank him. Turns out he owns a pharmaceutical company (that explains the extravagant gift!). He was a very nice man and went on to tell me his wife had recently died of cancer. We started talking about my book, KNOCKOUT: Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer and How to Prevent Getting it in the First Place. When the subject of chemosensitivity tests came up, he mentioned his wife had one during the course of her treatment, even still she could not be saved.

While the owner of a big pharmaceutical company knew the term and asked for this test for his own wife, the term “chemosensitivity test” would fail to be recognized by most Americans. However, this concept is well known in other parts of the world. For instance, in Germany, chemosensitivity tests are routinely conducted in order to determine which type of chemo should be utilized for a specific cancer patient. In KNOCKOUT, Dr. James Forsythe explains that in both Germany and Greece, specialists begin by harvesting the cancer cells out of the patient’s blood. They then break down the cells genetically in order to discover which markers are compatible with treatment of the tumor. From this, they can tell which drugs would be most effective for the particular cancer, which ones would be ineffective, or harmful. Once the correct type of chemo has been determined, Dr. Forsythe uses an integrative treatment, with far lower doses of chemo (10-20% of the norm), far fewer side effects, and much better results.

We are all aware that the purpose of chemo is to kill cancer cells, but that it also kills our healthy cells along the way. With the right fit, the correct chemo can target and kill cancer cells so that at least when we are choosing to add this poison into our systems we know it will do its intended job. Dr. Forsythe illustrates the impact of this testing by sharing one of his patient’s stories. He begins, “I had a patient from Sacramento who six months ago had been on a heavy-duty chemo protocol called FOL-FOX (containing oxaliplatin, 5FU, and Avastin). We found out from the German chemosensitivity test that two out of the three of those drugs were completely ineffective against his cancer cells. I switched him over to a sensitive drug and he’s now out playing golf three days a week and his liver has cleared up completely on recent follow-up scans” (KNOCKOUT, p.128).

If these tests could help us to take less chemo, or a better chemo for our specific cancer, why wouldn’t we ALL be given these tests? Experts say it’s too long of a process and too much trouble, so they make the best guess possible and hope it works. Dr. Robert Nagourney in Long Beach, California, and Larry Weisenthal in Huntington Beach, California, are the only two American doctors who run these tests. Otherwise, we don’t bother to go through this step of chemotherapy sensitivity testing before administering a poison that could be completely ineffective and damaging to our immune system. I wasn’t even told this testing was an option for me in either of my two diagnoses. Why not? Why not find out if at least there is a shot that the chemo being administered will have any effect? I suspect the reason is that if this poison doesn’t fit, someone will lose the revenue.

I have also learned about this major issue through my friend, Farrah Fawcett’s experience. She underwent two courses of excruciating, debilitating, immune-system-ruining chemotherapy for anal cancer – only to have the cancer return in three months. Then she traveled to Germany and was told upon doing a chemosensitivity test that the chemo she had been administered in our country had been completely ineffective. A waste of time. Useless. All it did was seriously degrade her health. Perhaps this explains Bill Faloon’s thought process when he says, “The second biggest killer in America is medical ignorance and it is the number one reason people die” (KNOCKOUT, p. 254).

Now that I realize chemosensitivity tests exist, it feels unconscionable that chemotherapy would ever, ever be administered without testing first to find out if the chemo is even compatible with the specific cancer. Big Pharma knows about these tests… and the man who bought my birthday dinner insisted for his own wife. Why doesn’t everyone have access to the same knowledge and treatment?

If you would like to find out more about chemosensitivity testing, read KNOCKOUT or consult the following resources:

Biofocus Institute for Laboratory Medicine
Dr. med Dipl. Chem. Doris Bachg
Dr. med Uwe Haselhorst
Berghauser Str. 295
45659 Recklinghausen, Germany
Contact: Dr. Lothar Prix
+49 2361-3000-130
+49 2361-3000-169 (fax)
Email: prix@biofocus.de
Research Genetic Cancer Centre (R.G.C.C.)
P.O. 53070 Florina, Greece
+30-24630-42264
+30-24630-42265 (fax)
E-mail: jpapasot@doctors.org.uk

Sincerely,

Suzanne Somers

For more information go to SuzanneSomers.com

Currently rated 4.0 by 21 people

  • Currently 4.000001/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: , ,

Cancer

Larry King: KNOCKOUT–War on Cancer-Do Conventional Oncologists Have Room to Learn ANYTHING New from Alternative Doctors?

by Suzanne Somers 10/27/2009 12:15:00 PM
I had the privilege to be on Larry King last Friday night to discuss my book, KNOCKOUT - Doctors Who are Curing Cancer and How to Prevent Getting It in the First Place. In case you missed it, here’s the link to view (CLICK HERE and then click on "Larry King - 10.23.09" on the drop-down menu). Here’s a note about the show from one of my friends on Facebook.

Suzanne,
 
You were great on Larry King - but some of the so called experts reminded me of the following story:

An old story relates an incident where a professor claiming to want to learn something new about the art of Zen visited a famous Zen master. “I have come to learn from you what is truth," said the professor.

The master invited the professor to share a cup of tea with him and he proceeded to fill the professor's cup. "Thank you," said the professor. "I cannot spend a great deal of time, but I am keen to learn all that I can."

When the tea reached the top of the cup, the master continued to pour more tea from the pot. After a short while, the tea began to run over the cup and onto the floor, and, finally, the professor could not contain his anxiety and shouted, "Stop, the cup will hold no more."

"So it is with you and any new ideas" said the master, "you are so full of what you already know, there is no room for you to learn anything else."

The two conventional doctors with me on Larry King Live, Dr. Black and Dr. Brawley, say they are interested in health care that helps the patient, but they were clearly not open to any new ideas from the alternative doctors, Dr. Burzynski and Dr. Gonzalez. They have studied conventional remedies for so long, their cup is "too full" to accept any new information. I encourage conversation on the subject of cancer treatment and hope all of the doctors and scientists along the spectrum (from conventional to integrative to alternative therapies) will learn from one another and help us to find a cure.

To join my Facebook Page click here.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Somers

For more information go to SuzanneSomers.com

Currently rated 4.3 by 6 people

  • Currently 4.333333/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: , , ,

TV / Live Appearances | Cancer

Patrick Swayze - A beautiful man, loved by millions

by Suzanne Somers 9/21/2009 4:43:00 PM
I was very saddened to hear that Patrick Swayze passed away last week of pancreatic cancer, the most virulent and lethal of all the cancers. My heart and deepest condolences go out to his wife, Lisa, and his family, his friends, and the millions who loved him.  

In a casual conversation at a private party (with someone who never identified himself as a reporter) at the Toronto Film Festival last week, I was asked about this beloved actor. It was never my intention to make an official statement about his passing. I was not informed or aware I was being interviewed. I would never have been so insensitive as to offer a public statement so close to his untimely passing. I sincerely apologize if my comment has caused any additional pain to his family during this difficult time. I send my deepest condolences for their loss.

Having had cancer myself, I know firsthand the pain and suffering heaped on patient and family.  The fear is unbelievable and we all make the best choices we can with the information we have at hand. In Toronto, I was thinking out loud and wishing for a different outcome for this beautiful man and his devoted wife. Patrick and his family fought courageously and with integrity right to the end. I know that every choice made in this devastating situation was made with love and care.

I was a major fan of Patrick’s work, and would never do anything to hurt him or his family. His tremendous talent has been preserved on film for generations to come to observe and enjoy. It is truly sad that his life was cut short and that we will not be able to follow his continued growth as a one of our greatest performers. 

Sincerely,

Suzanne Somers

Currently rated 4.0 by 79 people

  • Currently 3.987342/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Health and Hormones

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.4.5.0

About Suzanne

Suzanne Somers is one of America’s most popular and beloved personalities. In a multifaceted career, she has achieved extraordinary success as an actress, New York Times bestselling author, entrepreneur, singer, comedienne, and lecturer. Suzanne has authored 18 books, including eight New York Times bestsellers, as well as #1 New York Times, #1 Amazon and Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestsellers. There are currently more than 10 million copies of her books in print. As one of America’s most informed and dedicated health care advocates, Suzanne has been acknowledged for her leading role in bringing information on today’s groundbreaking anti-aging medical protocols, preventive care, long-term health, and hormone replacement therapies to women and men across the country.

Click here for Suzanne's full biography.

Month List