This article came my way a few days ago, but I am only now getting time to post it. This doctor, Roby Mitchell, seems to really be on the ball concerning what it takes to increase vitality of the body. He believes in an integrated approach to healthcare, using conventional means when necessary, as well as holistic, means to regain health. I will do my best to c&p what was sent to me, but it may seem a bit choppy. Dr. Mitchell's post, will be followed by the article being discussed, which will then be followed by the ensuing conversation between the two of them.
*******************************
From: roby mitchell [mailto:drfitt@mac.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 3:45 PM
To: ABCTV News Niteline NLINTRN1 Niteline NLINTRN1
Subject: Breast cancer-an iatrogenic disease
I recently asked Dr. Barbara Starfield M.D. MPH whether she thought breast cancer was related to ObGyn visits.You may remember Johns Hopkins professor Dr. Starfield as penning the seismic July 26,2000 JAMA article entitled "Is US Health Really the Best in the World?"In this article she documented evidence ,using conservative numbers,that doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death in the US(Not so conservative numbers have us ranked #1, see <
www.mercola.com and <www.garynull.com>).
I think breast cancer is caused by doctors as this disease shows a reversal in the incidence/socio-economic ratio we normally see.Women in higher socio-economic strata with more access to healthcare are more likely to get breast cancer.This is one of only a few major diseases that white women contract more than black women(Although black women are more likely to die from the "disease").
Dr. Starfield was characteristically cautious in her response and reflected that there was no documentation in the literature.That was then, the below is now.The elimination of estrogen ladened birth control pills would create another quantum drop in the incidence of this iatrogenic disease.Any colored text is my own ,unsolicited, editorial contribution.Please note that while breast cancer rates have decreased,the number of women using bio-identical hormone replacement has increased,suggesting a reverse correlation(protection against breast cancer).
**********************************
Decrease In Breast Cancer Rates Likely Reflect HRT Reduction And Saturation Of Mammography
Science Daily — A new study reveals two distinct patterns in the recent breast cancer rates in U.S. women: a downturn in the incidence rates in almost all age groups above 45 years beginning in 1998/1999, consistent with a levelling off of mammography utilization, and a sharp fall in the rates between 2002 and 2003 in the age groups 50-69 years, likely reflecting the early benefit of the reduced use of HRT(Premarin/Provera/Prempro).
Previous studies have suggested a link between HRT(Premarin/Provera/PremPro) use and breast cancer. Ahmedin Jemal and colleagues at the American Cancer Society conducted statistical analysis to examine patterns in invasive and in situ breast cancer incidence in relation to age, tumour size at diagnosis and disease stage. Regular mammography screening starts at 40 and HRT is most common in women aged 50 or older, so the study focussed on women age 40 and above.
The research team examined trends in breast cancer incidence in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database from 1975 to 2003. The database includes women from 5 US States (Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, and Utah) and 5 metropolitan cities (Atlanta, Detroit, San-Francisco, and Seattle). Almost 400,000 invasive and 60,000 in situ cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in that time. Breast cancer incidence rates increased by almost 40% between 1980 and 1998,(This was Premarin's hayday) and then showed a downward trend with a dramatic decrease from 2002 to 2003. The greatest decline was in women who had small tumours, early stage disease, estrogen/progestin positive tumours, and who were aged 55 or older.
Jemal et al concluded that the speed of decrease in breast cancer incidence, following the dramatic reduction in HRT(Premarin/Provera/Prempro) use after the Women's Health initiative publication in 2002, likely reflects the early consequences of reductions in HRT(Premarin/Provera?Prempro) use, while the downturn in incidence rates across multiple age groups beginning 1998/1999 reflects the saturation of mammography.
Article: Ahmedin Jemal, Elizabeth Ward and Michael J Thun, Recent Trends in Breast Cancer Incidence Rates by Age and Tumor Characteristics among U.S. Women, Breast Cancer Research (In press)
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by BioMed Central.
Roby Mitchell M.D.(Dr Fitt)
3501 Soncy #110
Amarillo Tx 79119
806 467 9824
drfitt@mac.com<www.drfitt.com>
*************************
Roby:
I am confused. The question you asked me was about gynecologists, not the hormones.
Perhaps the confusion is about the term iatrogenic which, according to the dictionary, is doctor-caused. Our language has no word for ‘health system-caused’. I believe that the problem is not doctors but pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists.
Barbara
Hello Barbara.Since ObGyns have been the primary distributors of HRT ,they have to be a link in the chain.I figured out after 2 years in practice, as a non-ObGyn, that conventional HRT was carcinogenic and toxic to the vascular system.Doctors can not claim innocence through ignorance while we're collecting big paychecks.The literature has labeled conventional HRT a clear and present danger almost since it was first approved and found to cause uterine cancer.
We also have to look at the history of ObGyns, which shows that from the time of Semmelweis,these doctors have added to the morbidity and mortality of women due to the willful negligence of arrogance.This specialty has had to establish its validity by manufacturing a veneer of necessity.Turns out women don't need to have their ovaries taken out prophylactically.Indeed, this increases their risk of Alzheimer's,osteoporosis, and heart disease.Most hysterectomies are unnecessary along with the significant morbidity they cause.Episiotomies turn out to be unnecessary and disfiguring.Why did it take them so long to figure out you don't need to do a pap smear for cervical cancer if you've removed the woman's cervix?!All these procedures have produced billions of dollars for these doctors at the expense of women's health and finances.
Currently,it has been proven without a doubt that a relative hypothyroidism occurs in pregnancy due to rising levels of estradiol.This is easily prevented by early assessment of TSH and replacing thyroid hormone to maintain prepregnancy levels.Fetal thyroid function does not begin until 2 months into the pregnancy.The fetal brain and heart formation are critically dependent on thyroid hormone.Failure to address this issue results in irreversible brain compromise.This can range from lowered IQ to mental retardation.Failure to address the thyroid issue also results in the hypertension,edema,diabetes,depression and other pregnancy related problems.These women then are more likely to have post-partum problems in the same areas,such as post-partum depression and diabetes.Andrea Yates' ObGyn should have gone to prison.
There is an excellent book by economist John Kenneth Galbraith,The Economics of Innocent fraud.In it he dispels the idea that you can make profit,do harm,and be innocent.Its like masturbating while you watch someone get raped.I agree with you whole heartedly that the pharmaceutical industry(the rapist) has culpability.However,as in Semmelweis' era,the ObGyns still have blood/money on their hands.
Linear Mode
