top of page
Writer's pictureSecond Opinion Magazine

Make an Informed Decision




When a benign tumor is found, such as DCIS, traditional medicine will strongly advise repeated mammography scans. However, aggressive treatment such as biopsies, surgery, and radiation for a cyst that has not developed into cancer, also known as “stage zero” or “pre-cancer”, can actually trigger the development of breast cancer.

Over 60,000 women are diagnosed with DCIS each year in the USA (van Seijen). This leads to crippling fear, anxiety, and a significant cost to the patient’s finances and health. When sensitive breast tissue is subjected to excessive radiation and chemical toxicity, it may actually stimulate the growth of cancer and can cause it to be more aggressive (Ji).


Physicians frequently recommend a biopsy on a DCIS, or a suggest that the healthy breast may be affected someday and offer a double breast mastectomy. Out of fear, and without more information, women choose the double mastectomy. According to an article from Mount Sinai Health System in the Huffington Post, it is a misconception when a woman is told that the other breast is high risk for developing cancer. It is incredibly low—a half percent!--that the other healthy breast is likely to develop cancer.


Over-diagnosis and over-treatment in conventional medicine are serious and harmful. Women undergoing traditional breast cancer screenings (mammograms) have a 50% chance of being diagnosed with a “false positive.” In the last few decades, we’ve learned that the types of breast cancers that do not grow, or grow very slowly and do not spread, are more common than expected. They would never impact a woman in her lifetime.

Dr. Christiane Northrup points out studies show mammograms do not reduce mortality. Tight compression from a mammogram helps spread cancer cells. She believes a biopsy will enable a spread of cancer cells also. Besides increasing anxiety and more stress, mammograms do not encourage a change in lifestyle practices.

Given the frequency of false positive results, lack of benefit, and exposure to radiation, screening mammography is not an effective tool for detecting breast cancer in the general population. Diagnostic mammograms are an exception because they are done to evaluate known breast problems. These tests can provide lifesaving information for diagnosis and treatment.

An ultrasound may be a more accurate way to see what is going on with a picture of the tissues inside the breast. It can show all areas of the breast, including the area closest to the chest wall, which is hard to study with a mammogram. A breast ultrasound does not use X-rays or other potentially harmful types of radiation. It is used to see whether a breast lump is filled with fluid (a cyst) or if it is a solid lump. A lump that has no fluid or that has fluid with floating particles may need more tests.

Preventive measures of self-care offer tremendous benefits. These include a change of lifestyle such as lymphatic breast self-massage, dry skin brushing, exercising regularly, maintaining an ideal weight, breastfeeding, avoiding pesticides, and eating a healthy diet that includes healthy fats and seven or more daily servings of vegetables and fruits.


Education and training will help make an informed decision. Take time to learn all the options. It may be a good idea to get a second or third opinion.

Joyce is a published author of “Breast Health Is in Your Hands, Tips for Breast Vitality and Sensuality” and founder of an international business, HealthyGirlsBreastOil, a unique effective essential oil blend for breast health. She offers consultations for natural breast health. www.aromatherapynaturedway.com


Sources: Ji, Sayer. “Chemo and Radiation Can Make Cancer More Malignant.” Green Med Info: The Science of Natural Healing. 31 July 2012. http://greenmedinfo.com/blog/does-chemo-radiation-actually-make-cancer-more-malignant.


van Seijen, M., Lips, E.H., Thompson, A.M. et al. “Ductal carcinoma in situ: to treat or not to treat, that is the question.” British Journal of Cancer. 121, 285–292 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0478-6.

1 view0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Commentaires


bottom of page