Why we take radiotherapy

I had said it was the con of the century, yet after hours of research I will agree with Jan taking it. There is no question that it reduces the risk of local cancer recurrence in the same breast, but I was dubious because the first eleven learned papers I read all said it made no difference to long term survival over say 5, 10 or 15 years. I think my measure of success would be long term survival.

The NHS must know this weakness, the consent form Jan signed said the purpose was to reduce the risk of local recurrence, nothing about a possible longer life. I discussed my concern over the ineffectiveness of radiotherapy and the PRIME trial suggesting it was useless with the oncologist. She was unaware of the NHS run PRIME trial, all she could say was all hospitals do it.....in fact my research suggests 70% of breast cancer patients receive radiotherapy.

We are taking radiotherapy because the surgeon performed his work expecting radiotherapy to follow. I guess it's a bit like my decorator could either not protect my furnishings and paint carefully, or use dust sheets and paint more rapidly.

Jan had three biopsies, and her WGL procedure had three mistakes, twice when the wire went straight through the tumour and out the other side, and once she had a hook pull back from the tumour, something we were assured was impossible. I suspect Jan's records were lost at that point to destroy evidence. So Jan has had six instances where preparation for surgery will have pushed parts of the tumour into the clear breast, and probably bloodstream and lymphatic system. A google search on seeding cancer along biopsy wire tracks illustrates my concern. So we probably need radiotherapy to clear up this mess.

Cancer authority, Ralph Moss, comments in his February 6th, 2005 Moss Reports Newsletter:

"Imagine the outrage these patients will feel when they learn that many metastases were caused not by the natural progression of their disease but directly by the actions of well-intentioned (but ill informed) doctors. Imagine, further, what will happen when patients find out that questions have been raised about the safety and advisability of needle biopsies for a number of years by some of the finest minds in oncology. Imagine the disruption of the smooth functioning of the "cancer industry" when patients start demanding less invasive ways of diagnosing tumors. And
imagine the class action lawsuits."

On the twelfth learned paper I read by a consultant surgeon in Cambridge dated 2007 I find a claim that radiotherapy increases chances of long term survival by 5%, so we go for it! I have emailed him to question his statistics!

A century of radiotherapy, and we still find the best it can do is increases mortality chances by 5%.... unbelievable, particularly when this is in only one learned paper, the other eleven say it makes no difference. Yet one hears so much about medical advances and the need for radiotherapy! Hence my description of the process as a con trick. Is it that patients need to see something being done, however ineffective, just like taking a placebo?