Cancer Misdiagnosis
by Steven Ransom

"In summoning even the wisest of physicians to
our aid, it is probable that he is relying upon a
scientific 'truth', the error of which will become
obvious in just a few years' time." Marcel Proust

20% rate of misdiagnosis by doctors - One out of every five patients who died in the medical intensive care unit at one of the nation's best hospitals were misdiagnosed by their doctors - a rate that mirrors the rates found in ICU's [intensive care units] nationwide, new research shows. Researchers assert in a report in the journal Chest that half of the misdiagnosed patients should have been treated differently, though it's hard to know whether that could have saved any lives.

Hearing those dreaded words, "You have cancer", and then submitting to the orthodox regime can be a devastating enough experience in itself. But what if you went through this experience, only to discover that it was all completely unnecessary?

You have cancer. Oh, hang on a minute…
While the above story from USA Today applies to misdiagnosis of disease in general, an Internet search on 'cancer misdiagnosis' reveals a very high number of lawyers advertising their services. The level of lawyer interest in any given litigious angle is usually a good indicator of that angle's ability to pay off. In the case of cancer, lawyers have gathered thick and fast around what has been found to be a lucrative and stable source of income. The science of cancer diagnosis apparently is by no means exact.

Smartlight Mammographics is a major manufacturer of radiography and mammography equipment. The organisation admits that radiographic testing procedures are inaccurate. Amazingly, this organisation has posted links that proffer the following information: "We expected error rates to be around 30%, but the wide range of results (10%-90%) was an eye-opener." and: "Radiologists can differ substantially in their mammographic recommendations."

There are unfortunately a great number of examples where misdiagnosis has occurred in a variety of ways, with predictably disastrous consequences.

Valerie Sahar was fortunate. She was told by her doctor that a biopsy had shown she had breast cancer. It was decided to have the breast removed as well as a portion of her underarm tissue, to be followed by radiation and chemotherapy. She headed for the examining room so the doctor could check her other breast. Ten minutes later her doctor said she didn't have cancer at all and that her test results had been mixed up with those of another patient. What if this mix-up had not been noticed? The woman would have lost one breast - possibly two - and would have been subjected to radiation and chemotherapy. If she had survived the treatment, she would then have been told she was cured.

Nancy Seeger, aged 56, was not so fortunate. She was only 14 years old when her mother died of breast cancer. Within five years, her mother's sister was dead of the same disease. Then, researchers developed a DNA test for the gene defect that supposedly predisposes a woman to both breast and ovarian cancer. Seeger opted for this test. When the results came back, the doctor solemnly handed her a letter which included the words "a lifetime risk of breast cancer as high as 85 percent… risk for ovarian cancer 50 percent over one's lifetime." The results, said the letter, had been confirmed independently.

No ovaries, but a refund
Even though she was healthy, Seeger opted for surgery to remove her ovaries. She was on the mend and already considering the removal of both her breasts too when she received yet another call from her doctor that she did not have the mutation after all. A second set of scientists had detected the error after she had donated a blood sample for research. The original lab apologised for any anxiety or stress this situation may have caused and refunded her $350 fee. But Seeger could not have children.

In October 1999, she filed a lawsuit against the lab, Oncormed, and the company that later acquired it, Gene Logic. A spokesman for Gene Logic stated the company no longer performs that test.

Dr James Elwood
In the UK, a report was released concerning the case of an elderly pathologist who misdiagnosed more than 200 cancer patients. The report was ordered after it emerged that 79-year-old Dr James Elwood, a consultant pathologist, had wrongly diagnosed more than 200 cancer patients at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Swindon. Dr Elwood had worked as a locum pathologist in three other Trusts - the Royal United Hospital Bath Trust, the Mid-Sussex Trust and Frimley Park Hospitals Trust - between 1995 and 1999.

Despite concerns being raised about his performance as early as 1995, investigations didn't start until 1999.

In a statement to the press, the Swindon and Community Health Council said the report was "a damning indictment of a system that has failed to protect patients from poorly performing locum consultants."

Jennifer Rufer
The story of 22-year-old Jennifer Rufer made headlines across the US. Jennifer was treated for a cancer she never had because of 'false positive' readings from a blood test made by Abbott Labs. She was awarded $16 million in June 2001, due in part to her continuous campaign over her 'diagnosis' of cancer through blood tests manufactured by Abbott Labs. Jennifer endured chemotherapy, a hysterectomy and lung surgery as a result of Abbot's errant predictive test.

Abbott Laboratories has so far refused to make the papers on these tests public knowledge and declines to acknowledge responsibility for this and other cases of cancer misdiagnosis. Abbot Laboratories also argues that there are acceptable levels of error, and cites doctors as the guilty party for not taking these factors into account.

"No matter how hard you try to educate doctors," says Abbott attorney Brad Keller, "there are still going to be a small handful of them who are not paying attention."
Rufer's attorneys say they have as many as 15 more women who may sue Abbott Labs. As a result of her experiences, Jennifer Rufer is unable to have children.

Back here in the UK:

Cervical Cancer Misdiagnosis Shakes UK Public Confidence In Screening: British health officials are emphasising to a worried public that the number of misdiagnoses in cervical smear slides found at Leicester Royal Infirmary is in line with national and international test levels. False-negative cervical smear slide readings led to the deaths of 14 women and unneeded radical treatment in another 64 women in the county of Leicestershire, a seven-year audit has shown. There is speculation that perhaps one third of British women who now have a diagnosis of cervical cancer could have received wrong or misleading smear results.

Prostate, thyroid and pancreatic cancer:
always seek a second opinion!
I was in a UK chainstore recently where leaflets were being distributed on prostate cancer - 'the silent killer in our midst'. The leaflets contained a great deal of scare-mongering sound-bytes, the whole thrust of the message being that men should go and get themselves tested for prostate cancer as soon as possible. To the more discerning eye, it was immediately apparent that these leaflets contained no accurate or important information whatsoever.

Firstly, there was no mention of the gravely inaccurate nature of the prostate cancer test, which measures levels of a protein called prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Medically qualified opponents of the PSA test prostate have long been stating that prostate tumours, when they occur, are slow-growing and that most men die with prostate cancer, not of it. Furthermore, the tests are costly, often inaccurate and emotionally trying for the patient.

According to a study carried out at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre in Seattle and published in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, about a third of over-65s screened with the prostate-specific antigen blood test are being overdiagnosed and receiving unnecessary treatment. The study also found the PSA test inaccurate due to the fact that the PSA protein in the blood is also found in men without cancer. The level rises as men age, and also when they have a benign prostate enlargement, or various infections. The study stated that about 35% of men tested would never experience any symptoms of the disease. One is forced to consider how many men are undergoing unnecessary treatment for prostate cancer today.

Testing, testing, 1-2-3:
dying 'with' and not 'of' cancer.
On the matter of 'dying with cancer and not of it', the following excerpt is taken from a book by Linus Pauling and Dr Ewan Cameron entitled Cancer and Vitamin C. Linus Pauling PhD is considered the father of Vitamin C research and Ewan Cameron is an oncologist with some thirty years experience in treating cancer patients conventionally.

"In many European hospitals, meticulous autopsies are performed without regard to cause of death, and these autopsies reveal a remarkably high incidence of cancers that were never suspected in life. Autopsy cancer of the prostate increases steadily with increasing age until after aged 75 it is found in every second male, yet only 2% of males die of prostate cancer."

The authors also noted that in those autopsies, cancer of the thyroid and pancreas is thirty to forty times as common than is presented in doctors' surgeries. Thirty to forty times as common! Unbeknown, people were living with these cancers and were not in the least troubled by them. Again, we must consider the possibility that it is only when the trusting patient submits to the various 'tests' for these cancers that trouble begins.

Firstly, the inaccurate nature of the test itself, then the fear factor as the diagnosis is delivered, and then the toxic drugs, surgery and other harmful, completely unnecessary treatments that follow diagnosis. We certainly live in an age where 'the test' rules the day. A reasonable scenario is where we find ourselves telling the doctor we feel perfectly well, in fact tip-top, and the doctor replies, "Nonsense! You just haven't had the right test yet." Pauling and Cameron go on to state:

"Cancer is therefore far more common than we usually realise and is not such a vicious disease as is commonly thought, except when it gets out of control. The great majority of cancers are held in check by the body; they grow for a while, then regress and disappear, and it is only an occasional one that escapes from control and forms a progressive cancer."

Part two of Great News on Cancer looks at the vital role of the immune system in the fight against cancer, how cell degeneration can occur and how cell REGENERATION can occur by natural means.

Test yourself at home
There are tests available now that allow the patient to screen themselves for cancer in the privacy of their own home. Anytestkits.com states on its website:

"The incidence of prostate cancer is one of the most worrying cancers for men, yet when diagnosed and treated in time, can be less invasive than when only found at an advanced stage. Although medical opinion varies when men should start doing this test annually, we would recommend that all men over 35 should have their prostate checked annually - and with this screening test, all it takes is a prick of your finger, a drop of blood, and you will have an indication if your prostate needs further medical investigation. $14.00, all costs included. To order, please go to the bottom of the page."

I for one will not be adding this particular test to my shopping cart. The danger to us males is that the media-driven prostate scare stories are forcing us along to the clinics, where we are then given scans that detect often benign abnormalities, and are then frightened into destructive conventional treatments, and worse still, complete prostate removal - a surgical intervention that strips us of our sex life. Furthermore, the drugs given to men deemed prostate cancer positive enlarge the breasts and cause other feminisation changes to the body.

Because testosterone has been linked to prostate tumour growth rates, estrogen is given to inhibit testosterone levels and prevent the hormone from acting on the prostate. Zoladex, a common prostate cancer hormone drug, causes weight gain, muscle bulk loss, breast enlargement, impotence, bone pain and general nausea. In the main, prostate cancer treatment is 'state medicine gone mad'. As we shall see in later chapters, and as per the Pauling quote, our bodies - if we look after them properly - can and do repel many cancers wholly unaided by conventional intervention.

The thyroid test
In 1997, a medical journal disarmingly announced the following:
"Researchers have developed a simple blood test that can identify postoperative thyroid cancer patients at risk for metastatic disease. The test involves a technique called reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) that allows for isolation of minute amounts of genetic material (messenger RNA)… [blah, blah, blah] the RT-PCR test is simple, inexpensive, and accurate. Further research on the test is in progress."

And yet, in that 'same old, same old' vein, a leading thyroid cancer voice in the US, The American Thyroid Clinic, states that most thyroid cancer detection tests are a waste of time and money and contribute nothing to the diagnosis. "We will often see a patient in the office with thousands of dollars worth of tests that were simply unnecessary. Probably the best test for a thyroid tumor is the experienced fingers of a thyroid surgeon."

Sheila Roy lost her marriage and two years of her life as a result of misdiagnosis and unwarranted medical intervention. In 1997, she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and given one year to live. She underwent aggressive treatment that included surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. She received 40 days of radiation and was given high doses of the chemotherapy drug 5FU (sometimes referred to by doctors as '5 feet under' because of its deleterious effects). Two years after the initial diagnosis, it was discovered that the pathologist had made a mistake in interpreting test results. Medical authorities admitted the young woman had never had cancer. It is now hoped she will not develop secondary cancer as a result of the radiation and chemotherapy to which she was needlessly and carelessly subjected.

The pancreatic cancer test
The American Cancer Society reports on the latest pancreatic cancer test involving genetic exploration of the family tree. Patients are strongly advised to read the section on genetics and cancer in this book before submitting to such tests.

Personally speaking, I see the explosive growth of tests as outward confirmnation that we are continuing to hand over responsibility for personal health to our modern-day shamens, the medical 'experts'. If the above examples serve any purpose, it is to demonstrate that seeking a second opinion, outside of the conventional cancer circle, is a wise move. Whilst the remit of this book does not spread to the full coverage of doctor-induced injury and death, it is worth bringing to attention the fact that over a million patients are injured in US hospitals each year, and approximately 280,000 die annually as a result of these injuries. This means that the death rate of iatrogenesis (doctor-induced events) dwarfs the annual automobile accident mortality rate of 45,000 and accounts for more deaths than all other accidents combined. As John Moelaert, author of The Cancer Conspiracy, states:

"Medicine is not an exact science like mathematics. There is an inordinate degree of guesswork involved in the diagnosis and treatment of disease, and as a result countless mistakes are made, some fatal."

And further on down the line, at the doctor's surgery, Phillip Bates, the author of Health Revolution, suggests the following:

"Your doctor isn't an idiot, or even a bad guy - he's just the victim of his extensive and expensive education, and he believes the [American Medical Association] dogma. He reads medical journals to keep up, naturally. There's no reason for him to disbelieve the articles that appear in his journals about vitamin C not being effective. He must reason that if any such therapy were good, it would be reported in such journals. The individual doctor is probably not even aware that the medical journals he reads are literally controlled by the drug advertising. Don't blame your doctor for his lack of knowledge. Blame the system."

The narrow view
Credence is always careful to stress that undergoing conventional medical training does not automatically mean signing up to some vast conspiracy intentionally killing people. But these accusations are still leveled at us from time to time by certain conventional medical professionals who should know better. The fact that qualified people actually hold this view is well illustrated in the following letter sent to me by one irate doctor:
"I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that supports the conspiracy theories that abound on the web. It doesn't matter whether it's cancer treatment, aspartame, or even soybeans. Consider this: would any company seek to sell products that kill the customer? It doesn't make any sense. The scientist who discovered cisplatin was a professor of mine in university. I knew his mind and his heart. He wanted to find a cure because it had devastated someone in his family. While all chemotherapies are poisons, by extension of your logic he was creating a product that he knew would kill his family members. Does that even make sense to you?"

And further:
"But consider this: if even one person takes your recommendations not to use chemotherapy and dies anyway, you're as guilty of murder as Jack the Ripper. But more than that, you'll have failed at what you're probably trying to do: help people. Live with that. P.S. I've forgotten more than you will ever know."

Quite depressingly, prior to writing the above letter, this doctor had already been made aware of the information in chapter 2 on cisplatin - the drug that chemotherapy experts would most want to avoid. Yet because the professor is a colleague of his and is a well-intentioned individual, this somehow makes it all acceptable. Never mind the fact that cisplatin is a corrosive carcinogen. Furthermore, anyone who questions these honourable intentions is immediately labelled a conspiracy theorist and perhaps 'Jack the Ripper'. (And conversely, by an extension of the above doctor's logic, if cisplatin, or chemotherapy in general, were to kill just one person, then the doctor advising it would also be guilty of murder.)

In his book, Hidden Persuaders, advertising and media critic Vance Packard stated that in order for one party subtly to gain superiority over another party, that party must employ certain tactics. "…one must pre-empt the vocabulary in order to gain the moral/political high ground."

Through emotive semantics, this doctor has unsuccessfully attempted to claim the moral high ground.

The ladder of knowledge
Nicholas Murray Butler was chief spokesman for the huge conglomerate J P Morgan and Co. Butler once stated:

"The world is divided into three classes of people: a very small group that makes things happen, a somewhat larger group that watches things happen, and the great multitude which never knows what is really happening."

Lower down the ladder of conventional cancer knowledge, these poisonous products are being manufactured and administered by multitudes who are proud to be associated with medicines 'designed to save lives'.

Working under such tremendous pressures every single day, doctors, nurses and physicians just do not have the time to step off the conventional treadmill and take time to catch up on contrary research. And so, most conventional doctors fall into the category of Butler's 'great multitude'. It is far simpler and more expedient to dismiss all contrary information as fringe lunacy and conspiracy theory until such times as it appears either in a recognised conventional medical journal or as a product warning from the drug manufacturers. Then, and only then, is the information considered seriously. And even at this point, some doctors struggle to alter their prescribing habits.

Excerpted with permission from
Great News on Cancer in the 21st century by Steven Ransom
Copyright © Steven Ransom 2003

Further Resources
Want to know the good news about cancer? Click on the Internet tours below and get busy today!

Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day
Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom
B-17 Metabolic Therapy compiled by Phillip Day

Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.
Click here if you wish to contact Credence for information on treatment options or resources.