Lancet study confirms: The “fatal breast cancer gene” is a myth; it does NOT affect a “significant difference” in survival rates

Lancet study confirms: The “fatal breast cancer gene” is a myth; it does NOT affect a “significant difference” in survival rates

Wednesday, January 31, 2018 by: Vicki Batts

Tags: badcancer, badhealth, badmedicine, badscience, Big Pharma, breast cancer, cancer genes, cancer industry, genetics, junk science, medical myths

3,480
Views

(Natural News) The cancer industry has been heavily scrutinized for shamelessly encouraging unwarranted treatments and other acts of medical lunacy, but this latest find regarding breast cancer genetics is sure to take the cake. As it turns out, the highly publicized, highly feared breast cancer genes (BRCA-1/2) are not actually a death sentence — despite mass campaigns encouraging women with these genes to undergo treatment as a “preventive” measure.
The study was published by The Lancet Oncology, a well-known and respected journal. To conduct their research, senior author Professor Diana M Eccles, from the Cancer Sciences Academic Unit at the University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, and her team analyzed data from 127 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Data was collected from 2,733 women between the ages of 18 and 40 between the years of 2000 and 2008.
As the researchers reported:
Genotyping detected a pathogenic BRCA mutation in 338 (12%) patients (201 with BRCA1, 137 with BRCA2). After a median follow-up of 8·2 years (IQR 6·0–9·9), 651 (96%) of 678 deaths were due to breast cancer. There was no significant difference in overall survival between BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative patients in multivariable analyses at any timepoint (at 2 years: 97·0% [95% CI 94·5–98·4] vs 96·6% [95·8–97·3]; at 5 years: 83·8% [79·3–87·5] vs 85·0% [83·5–86·4]; at 10 years: 73·4% [67·4–78·5] vs 70·1% [67·7–72·3]; hazard ratio

---

0·96 [95% CI 0·76–1·22]; p=0·76).
Ultimately, 651 women with breast cancer died during the study — but the data showed that women with BRCA mutations were at no greater risk of succumbing to disease than anyone else. This revelation, of course, lies in stark contrast to what we’ve all been told when it comes to breast cancer.
But the shock findings didn’t end there: The team also found that of the 558 women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, those with a BRCA mutation actually had better overall survival rates at the two-year-mark than those who didn’t have the mutation.
According to the researchers, it seems that in cases of young-onset breast cancer, women who carry BRCA mutations have a similar survival rate to non-carriers. And when it comes to triple negative breast cancer, women with BRCA mutations may actually have a better outlook than those who do not. Further, the researchers note that undergoing immediate double mastectomy did not account for this apparent advantage.
Have we been lied to all these years?
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has reported on the deceptiveness of the cancer industry, along with fraud and abuse within the medical and pharmaceutical industries over the years. In the summer of 2017, Adams reported on the massively incriminating study which found that the cancer industry and Big Pharma’s lovechild — chemotherapy — actually helped spread cancer throughout the body, rather than curing it.
Now, in addition to the fraud of chemo, it seems that women have been lied to about what does and does not cause cancer. In the Lancet study, the researchers note that there has been conflicting research regarding BRCA mutations and cancer to begin with — yet the uncertainty didn’t seem to stop any number of oncologists from suggesting that women have their breasts lopped off completely in the name of prevention. Even celebrities like Angelina Jolie have publicly gone under the knife to join the cancer industry’s propaganda parade.
Will future research continue to undermine the trappings of conventional cancer treatments and other cancer myths — or will these findings, like others, be skewered by the industry-fed mainstream media? [Related: Read more stories like this at Cancer.news]
Sources for this article include:
WakingTimes.com
TheLancet.com

Facebook

Twitter

Google+

Share