Oncology Wants To Become Bona Fide
There is a new movement underway to redefine the definition of cancer. It is simply conventional medicine trying to defraud the public into believing that oncologists actually care about people.
Over a year ago the National Cancer Institute held a meeting to discuss the problem of cancer over-diagnosis. The National Cancer Institute as most of you already know is a dubious Federal governmental agency in the States, which operates under the National Institutes of Health, with a very questionable agenda. Then at the end of July, 2013 the prestigious JAMA or the Journal of the American Medical Association published a write up of this historic meeting on their Web site.
This coverage in JAMA was more of a comedy than a bona fide research study. Still, drawing attention to this new development has some merit.
This relatively new movement in oncological circles to redefine cancer has the potential to become a landmark event, much like the evidence-based medicine movement has been. Here we see a group of oncologists in their very lame way of doing things finally bringing to the light of day the fact that the approach that conventional medicine has taken with cancer has been nothing but a farce, all along.
Early Detection False Positives
A myth of conventional medicine is that their early detection services save lives. The reality, however, is that early detection turns up far too many false positives. A false positive happens when some type of cancer screening turns up an abnormality that ultimately turns out not to be bona fide cancer within one year of detection. These false positives are most likely to be turned up in breast, lung, prostate, and thyroid cancer early detection services.
So what should conventional medicine do, about their dirty little secret? The ignorance and concern of the public is perceived by them as the problem. What the movement to redefine the definition of cancer proposes is to simply change cancer terminology. Conventional Medicine, after all, has always been big on naming things, as if labels have ever helped anybody to get well. Cancer, according to them should be reserved only for fast growing tumors with an almost certain death sentence while false positive goofs should be labeled with a new acronym: IDLE (indolent lesions of epithelial origin). Those with true cancer would be advised to prepare to die, while those with an IDLE condition would be expected to take a wait and see approach to monitoring their health status. Meanwhile, oncologists would simply magically stop turning up so many false positives with their early detection services.
They also reluctantly admitted that far too many people with non-life threatening IDLE conditions have been harmed by their antiquated approaches to cancer. This group of oncologists are calling for a more genetic-based approach to detecting and treating cancers.
What is so laughable is that these highly educated oncologists who demand so much of your hard earned money for their worthless medical services seriously think that this move would make bona fide progress in their war against cancer. Who in their right minds would actually think that their horrible IDLE acronym would ever catch on? Why not simply use benign growths as the new term?
Thank goodness that supplementation with vitamin D does a much more thorough job of preventing age-related cancer. All you have to do is get your blood levels of D up to desirable levels on an indefinite basis. Once you have established a comfortable margin of safety by giving vitamin D-3 enough time to do its thing, you are basically home free. In other words, vitamin D works buts takes time to remove all abnormal cell growths and premalignant conditions from your body. Once you have a few years under your belt of maintaining acceptably high levels of D, on a consistent basis, obtaining false positives from conventional medicine early detection services should virtually be impossible according to the DINOMIT Model Of Cancer Development.
Please read our Medical Advice Disclaimer.
References:
- Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Jr, Reid B.
Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Cancer: An Opportunity for Improvement.
JAMA. 2013;():-. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.108415.
