Breast cancer (and other cancers) – can this pill save lives?

I don’t usually share information about so-called cancer ‘cures’, but the possibility that surgery, and even fine needle biopsies, could prompt cancer spread has interested me for many years. So when I came across this blog and understood the scientific reasoning behind the hope, I felt it could be important.

The story is explained on a blog by Ralph W Moss  PhD, 28 December 2018:

“About ten years ago, an anesthesiologist named Patrice Forget, MD, PhD (pronounced “For-shay”), of University Hospital, Brussels, compared the cancer recurrence rate of 327 women. All the women had received one of four different painkillers during their surgery for breast cancer. Dr. Forget found something astonishing. There was a greatly reduced risk of a distant relapse among breast cancer patients who got ketorolac. This was compared to patients who received the three other non-NSAID painkillers. They got no such benefit.

There was a good scientific reason why this would be so. As the name implies, an NSAID is an anti-inflammatory drug, not specifically a breast cancer pill. And as Dr. Forget has said: “Surgery and inflammation are closely associated, and linked to mechanisms that promote tumor growth.”

…When a surgeon removes a tumor, the resulting surgical wound causes systemic inflammation for a week or so. The body, in trying to heal that wound, release some hormone-like compounds to speed healing. But these growth and repair signals can have an unanticipated side effect. If the patients have any remaining cancer cells in their bodies, the normal wound healing can stimulate the re-growth of their cancers.”

The blog goes on to explain how the pill works by reducing systemic inflammation and so preventing the growth of new blood supplies to micro-metastases and stopping the growth of a new tumour.

Is it proven too work? Two retrospective studies have shown and a 41% and 45% reduction in the risk of distant recurrences. “These two studies show “a definite benefit of perioperative ketorolac in breast cancer,” according to Dr. Michael Retsky of the Harvard School of Public Health.

The ideas have been put forward in a medical textbook by Michael W Retsky and Romano Demicheli: Perioperative Inflammation as Triggering Origin of Metastases Development, Springer.

Please note – further clinical trials are needed before any definite benefit of ketolac as an anti-cancer drug can be proven.

https://www.mossreports.com/breast-cancer-pill-ketorolac/

Advertisements

Breast screening : ‘Citizens’ juries can bring public voices on overdiagnosis into policy making’

Extremely knowledgeable response to this article from Hazel Thornton:

BMJ 2019;364:l351

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l351/rapid-responses

Book: Death of a Whistleblower

Citations from Gøtzsche PC. Death of a whistleblower and Cochrane’s moral collapse.

PC Gotzsche, People’s Press, Copenhagen 2019:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-whistleblower-Cochranes-moral-collapse-ebook/dp/B07N927GXC/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549013946&sr=1-15&keywords=death+of+a+whistleblower

“This is like capital punishment what we’re doing” (Gerald Gartlehner)

“We are offering Peter’s head on a platter and we’ll be able to open up ourselves to a unified brand and more funding” (David Hammerstein)

“A researcher is making inquiries about the suppression of information regarding children who died in a clinical trial and everyone is worried about what letterhead it is written on?” (Ryan Horath)

”… the CEO of the Collaboration, rather than finding that pursuit worthwhile, finds reason to think it might provide cause to expel the director from the collaboration” (Robert Whitaker)

“This whole process really questions whether this would still be an organisation that you would want to contribute to” (Karsten Juhl Jørgensen)

“Peter is undoubtedly a giant, one of the greatest scientists of our times and one of the most influential, impactful, and useful voices in medicine at large. I cherish enormously his contributions” (John Ioannidis)

“The big winner in this conflict has been the pharmaceutical industry, having succeeded in weakening the voice of one of its greatest critics and having consolidated a Cochrane leadership closer to industrial interests with fewer audible critical voices” (David Hammerstein)

“If your review is made up of studies which are biased and in some cases are ghost written or the studies are cherry picked and you don’t take that into account in your review, then it’s garbage in and garbage out … with a nice little Cochrane logo on it” (Tom Jefferson)

Book: Gøtzsche PC. Death of a whistleblower and Cochrane’s moral collapse

“This book, released two days ago, gives readers access to secret recordings, which reveal how the Cochrane leadership betrayed the charity’s mission and values; misled millions of people about the facts; and trampled over all sorts of rules and agreements for charities and Cochrane in the process to get its way.

This is the fascinating story about institutional corruption in one of the world’s most venerated charities, the Cochrane Collaboration, which ultimately led to the worst show trial in academia you can imagine….

I fought to uphold Cochrane’s original values of transparency, rigorous science, free scientific debates, and collaboration. But instead of maintaining scientific integrity, Cochrane’s CEO is consumed with managing the charity like a business, promoting its brand and products and demanding the censorship of dissenting views. This is detrimental to a scientific organisation and action is therefore needed.” Peter C Gotzsche.

Death of a whistleblower and Cochrane’s moral collapse. P C Gotzsche, People’s Press, Copenhagen, 2019, is an e-book that was released on 31 January. It can be bought on Amazon for £22,19:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-whistleblower-Cochranes-moral-collapse-ebook/dp/B07N927GXC/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549013946&sr=1-15&keywords=death+of+a+whistleblower

Breast Screening: Renee Pellerin’s ‘Conspiracy of Hope’ exposes the truth

“An explosive book that exposes the truth about breast cancer screening.

For decades, women have been told that mammograms save lives. Yet many scientists say that this is in fact not true. Conspiracy of Hope reveals how breast cancer screening was introduced in the US before there was any good evidence it made any difference, and an unfounded belief in early detection caught on quickly in Canada and other developed countries. Today the evidence is starkly clear. Screening does more harm than good. Still women, and their doctors, continue to buy into a myth perpetuated by greed…”

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conspiracy-Hope-Breast-Cancer-Screening/dp/1773100386/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1548839737&sr=1-7&keywords=conspiracy+of+hope

Breast screening – latest recommendations from Hong Kong Cancer Expert Working Group

“After considering the local epidemiology, emerging scientific evidence, and local and overseas screening practices, the CEWG concluded that it was unclear whether population-based breast cancer screening did more harm than good in local asymptomatic women at average risk. The CEWG considers that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against population-based mammography screening for such individuals. Women who consider breast cancer screening should be adequately informed about the benefits and harms .”

Recommendations on prevention and screening for breast cancer in Hong Kong. Cancer expert working group on cancer prevention and screening (August 2016 to July 2018).

Hong Kong Med J 2018 Jun;24(3):298–306

http://www.hkmj.org/abstracts/v24n3/298.htm

Breast screening – important issues re major overhaul of NHS cancer screening programmes

The news that thousands of patients were not sent screening invitations has prompted a major overhaul of NHS cancer screening programmes. What a pity major reviews that showed women taking part in breast screening were 3 times more likely to be harmed  than those who did not attend (not only false positives & negatives, radiation-induced cancers, but overdiagnosis/overtreatment/biopsies & mastectomies etc – treating anomalies that would never cause a problem in a woman’s lifetime…) did not prompt a similar investigation earlier – and despite these results, actually lengthened the programme at both ends. Will the overhaul be as full as women need it to be? Will the report be as honest as women need it to be? Will the UK swallow its pride abour the breast screening programme, like France and Switzerland have done?

A rapid response by Professor Susan Bewley (False claims prove the need for independent scrutiny of cancer screening) to the relevant BMJ article, (NHS announces major overhaul of national cancer screening programmes in England), highlights important issues:

BMJ 2018;363:k4866

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4866/rr-0