Cancer Authorities in Denial

Originally published in icon Issue 1 2007

Rising rates of cancer diagnosis will put an increasing strain on health care systems across Europe, according to experts writing in the Annals of Oncology.  A recent ‘Study’ indicates that there were 3.2 million new cases of cancer in Europe in 2006, up from 2.9 million in 2004.  Professor Peter Boyle of IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) in Lyon said that the key factor was the increasing average age of the population.  He called for more screening (particularly on breast cancer and PSA tests for prostate). Ruth Yates of CRUK added that “Nowadays, better screening techniques and new treatment technology are all helping to cut the number of people dying of cancer”.

However, our own Chris Woollams had slightly different views, “Oh Dear. If they had suggested more colon cancer screening (where we are still seeing Government delays) then that would have made some sense. BUT. More screening for Breast and Prostate? They’re just showing how very out of touch they are with the real problem.

Firstly, the PSA and mammogram screening programmes are well known to give too many false positives, identifying cases of cancer, which simply are not.  The PSA test has been hugely discredited in the USA. Asking for more screening and earlier screening, just creates ‘statistics complacency’.  More people will have false positives yet be included in the diagnosed figures, then obviously survive so improving the 5-year figures. The earlier diagnosis also logically means more women reach 5-year points and so the overall statistics will therefore show more people “surviving”, less people dying.  How is this, in truth, “beating cancer?”

Even the British Medical Journal has recently stated that the current orthodox medical strategy of Screening, Surgery, Radiotherapy and Drugs has only produced a 5.5 per cent survival improvement, despite the zillions of pounds spent to date. Also the facts are quite clear – large-scale research from Canada and Denmark showed breast cancer screening makes not one jot of difference to long-term survival rates. (See our article on mammograms)

Finally, this disease has NOT simply increasing because the population is ageing.  Overall incidence may have doubled in the last 30 years but, amongst children and teenagers, some cancers have more than trebled. 

So saying the increased levels are down to an ageing population and we need more breast and prostate screening is lazy and inaccurate.  These people must be in denial of the many possible contributory factors in the cancer process.

‘The key factor’ Professor Boyle should be addressing is that some of the very companies that sponsor the major charities and universities’ activities also make the toxic chemicals in household products and pesticides, or the synthetic vitamin and hormone products or heighten our EMF levels through mobile/cordless phones and masts – all factors some MEP’s in the EU and MP’s in the UK are constantly looking to limit; but they are frustrated at every turn by lobbyists and vested interests.  Consequently cancer prevention strategies are a disaster.  And levels will continue to grow. Regular readers of icon would laugh at Boyle and Ruth Yates, if this wasn’t such a serious matter!”