Is this a cure?

I chose that title as in summary Jane Plant may well have ideas to save thousands of women from breast cancer and men from prostate cancer, they are both similarly hormone linked.

I reflect most of the night on Jane Plant's book. I suspect many of her ideas could save lives. I can hardly sleep because of my anger at what the NHS conventional treatment does so inefficiently, yet ideas such as Jane's cannot make the mainstream. I do not endorse all her ideas, especially on acupuncture and aromatherapy. But 70% on diet and lifestyle makes good sense.

Jan returned from seeing a radiologist yesterday. I believe his advice to Jan does positive harm. Yet he has taken the hippocratic oath. That states "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." More on that tomorrow, I want to sleep on it.

Back to Jane's book and my anger. She has looked as a scientist at the statistics of death from breast cancer amongst 10 countries. She finds that China has just over a third of the deaths from breast cancer as we get in the UK. That is my careful analysis of her figures, not the 10,000 fold claimed by the Amazon summary.

To review what treatment does for people with cancer like Jan's:

• Chemotherapy 3 % reduction in deaths from recurrence
• Radiotherapy claimed 10 %, I suspect it's no use at all if one looks at long term mortality
• Tamoxifen 31% reduction in recurrence
• Chinese lifestyle (as proposed in Jane's book) 300% reduction
• Polish lifestyle as proposed earlier in this blog 300% reduction in recurrence.

These last two figures are not plucked from thin air, though they do not have peer reviewed accuracy. Jane is a professor at London University. I have taken my figures from peer reviewed scientific papers, typically published by professors at London, Oxford, San Francisco or Harvard Universities. These figures reflect real life horrible deaths of thousands of breast cancer sufferers, we need to learn more from them rather than inventing more useless drugs.

How can conventional medicine be so blind to what I and Jane see as straightforward facts? Why research new almost useless drugs when a simple lifestyle change would do more good? Is it vested interest? Funding of research by Pharmaceuticals? Why does Professor Sir Richard Peto proclaim that survival from breast cancer in the UK continues to improve, which is of course true, yet the drugs he advocates are almost useless? I rate a 3% improvement as not worth while, particularly after the millions of pounds spent to achieve it. Dare he not say "We have failed, fire my staff, and import a Polish nutritionist?"

Is it that a lifestyle change is too unpopular? Jane suggests abandoning dairy products such as milk, cheese, yoghurts. The Polish family I know have no car - so maybe exercise is as important as diet. Both lifestyle changes will obviously cost somewhat in comfort and convenience. But far less than the effects of chemotherapy.

So I reflect on what to do. In the meantime the UK's cancer cure rate has again hit the headlines as being amongst the worst in Europe, and way below USA. Harriet Harman was wittering on TV last night about how the government was pouring in money. A member of the audience said, "we want results, not ever increasing tax burdens". It was lost on Harriett who could only see finance as a solution.

Our latest church prayer sheet at Hoddesdon lists another lady diagnosed with a cancerous lump... my anger grows.

But how do I share this with Jan who is still weakened by Tamoxifen? Quite a challenge! As a ward sister Jan was subservient to doctors for over 20 years, and finds my attitude dangerous.....