Women with Breast Cancer suffer higher Death Rates in Britain’s National Health Service

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2013

Week in Review

The whole push for Obamacare was to provide quality care for all Americans.  Not just those who could afford it.  Health care was going to be classless.  There would be true equality.  No one would receive any better care than anyone else.  Because health care is not a privilege.  It’s a right.  Or so the proponents of national health care say.  And why they supported Obamacare.  A waypoint on the path to true universal care.  Where everyone gets the best health care whenever they need it.  Just like in Britain.  Whose National Health Service (NHS) is what those in America want Obamacare to evolve into.  So health care in America will be just as good as health care in Britain (see British women ‘dying quicker of breast cancer than elsewhere’ by Stephen Adams posted 3/1/2013 on The Telegraph).

Academics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found the proportion of women in the UK surviving at least three years after being diagnosed was 87 to 89 percent, which was similar to Denmark.

In Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden three-year survival was 91 to 94 per cent for the period examined, between 2000 and 2007…

In Britain only 28 per cent made it to three years, but in Sweden 42 per cent did…

Dr Sarah Walters, lead author, said: “We should now investigate whether the treatment of women with later-stage breast cancer meets international standards. There is particular concern that this is not the case, especially for older women”.

Sara Hiom from Cancer Research UK, which helped with the study, said: “We need to investigate the possibility that fewer women with later stage breast cancer in the UK receive the best treatment for their circumstances…”

“The NHS is also working to ensure all patients are treated as individuals and receive care that meets their healthcare needs whatever their age or condition.”

National health care is great.  As long as you’re not old.  For those old people are very costly to treat.  Because they’re living longer into retirement.  Consuming ever more health care dollars (or British pounds) for a few months more of life.  If Britain wants to get their health care costs under control they could save a lot by not treating some of these highest consumers of health care.  Putting some of them, instead, on the Liverpool Care Pathway.  Where doctors can withdraw treatment to let terminal ill patients die with dignity.  While saving precious health care dollars/pounds for use elsewhere.  Cold and callous, yes, but it is happening.

They don’t call the Liverpool Care Pathway a death panel.  But it is one.  Especially when some people are placed on the pathway without consulting with the person’s family first.  Something to look forward to as Obamacare evolves more into a national health care system.  As well as higher death rates for women with breast cancer.  Where there will be more equality.  As we lower the quality of care for everyone by trying to do more with less.  As health care costs soar due to aging populations.  People living longer into retirement.  And tax revenues fall due to aging populations.  Fewer people entering the workforce to pay for those living longer into retirement.  Leaving death panels as one of the few ways for governments to cut costs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare may lead to more Elderly Women suffering from Breast Cancer

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 20th, 2012

Week in Review

The NHS is in the midst of budget cutting.  Cutting about £5 billion (about $8 billion US) a year to save £15 billion to £20 billion (about $24 billion to $32 billion US) by 2014.  And it isn’t easy.  Costs have risen because of an aging population.  Something current tax revenue simply can’t keep up with.  So they have to find ways to cut costs.  And that is usually done by increasing wait times and rationing of services.  So as they cut costs that aging population will continue to increase the demands on the NHS.  Requiring even longer wait times.  And even more rationing.  Making it even more difficult for the NHS to handle the explosion in breast cancer rates coming (see Breast cancer timebomb fear: Experts warn that NHS faces crisis as number of women living with disease is set to treble to 1.7m by Sophie Borland posted 10/15/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Soaring numbers of women living with breast cancer will leave the NHS in crisis, researchers warn today.

Nearly 1.7million will be coping with the illness by 2040 – three times as many as today.

The increase will be partly caused by our ageing population, with breast cancer far more common in the over-50s…

Experts say that unless the health service makes major changes, it will be unable to cope with the surge.

They fear it will not have the resources to help growing numbers of women deal with breast cancer treatment, side effects and living with the disease…

There is widespread concern that elderly women are often diagnosed with breast cancer too late and are not always offered the best treatment…

Some doctors are reluctant to offer surgery to remove tumours for women in their 70s and 80s as they think they are too frail.

Studies have shown that some will simply look at a woman’s date of birth when deciding whether to offer her surgery to remove tumours.

Once again someone will have to make some difficult decisions as who gets those limited NHS resources and who doesn’t.  Just as they will have to under Obamacare.  As the US has an aging population, too.  Some bureaucrat will have to make life and death decisions for other people.  Even though our health care professionals won’t call this a death panel it will act as a death panel nonetheless.  Because when you try to give everything to everyone you will run out of health care resources long before you treat everyone.  So when it comes to treating a 70 year old woman with breast cancer versus a hysterectomy for a 40 year old woman, the odds are that the 40 year old woman will get her surgery.  Because she will enjoy a longer life after the surgery.  In which she will be able to pay more income taxes to help fund the NHS.  Or Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Breast Cancer Rates quadrupling for Women who lived through the Sexual Revolution

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 20th, 2012

Week in Review

Breast cancer rates are rising for older women.  The question is why?  What are our older women doing today that is causing these higher rates?  Or is it something from their past.  Like the effects of heavy smoking catching up to them in their later years?  Health officials think it may just be their aging population causing this.  As people who live longer have more time to have diseases that they didn’t when people were dying in their fifties and sixties.  But breast cancer rates for these women are expected to quadruple.  Which makes one believe there may be something else besides an aging population causing this to happen (see Breast cancer cases in older women set to quadruple by Denis Campbell posted 10/15/2012 on the guardian).

The number of older women with breast cancer will almost quadruple by 2040, according to new research in the British Journal of Cancer.

Currently 340,000 of the 570,000 women of all ages in the UK with the disease are 65 or older. That is set to increase to 1.2 million out of a projected 1.68 million total number of women with the disease by 2040.

That represents a rise in the proportion of all breast cancers among older women from 59% now to 73% then…

“The NHS needs to ensure that every older woman with breast cancer gets the best possible care,” added Devane. “Too many cancer doctors are making assumptions based on age, which often results in older women receiving inadequate care for their breast cancer,” he said.

Women who are 65 today were in their twenties between 1967 and 1977.  A decade of great social change.  Including, of course, the use of birth control and abortion.  Giving us the sexual revolution.  Marking a shift in when women started their families.  Because of birth control and abortion women delayed starting their families.  Could this play any factor in the rise of breast cancer rates?  Some think so.  While some vehemently reject this.  There are studies showing a link.  Studies that some say are flawed.  Unfortunately, abortion is a very politicized issue.  Unlike other health-related issues.  For example, when one study showed that drinking coffee may cause cancer the media reported it widely and some people gave up their coffee.  Then when another study showed that it didn’t people resumed their coffee drinking habits.  But when it comes to a link between abortion and breast cancer politics come first.  And the pro-life people seem to be the only ones talking about it.  While the pro-choice people denounce those studies as being flawed.

But one thing that can’t be denied is that there is a rise in breast cancer rates that haven’t been explained yet by any other cause or factor.  Whereas lung cancer rates have declined by a corresponding decline in smoking.  While they have found no such corollary to explain the rise in breast cancer rates.  Not smoking.  Not diet.  No food preservative or pharmaceutical side effect.  At least, not yet.  But because breast tissue changes after conception and abortion interrupts that change, or simple delays in pregnancy (without ever having an abortion) delays those changes in breast tissue, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support a link between abortion and breast cancer.  And between delays in the change of breast tissue to produce milk and breast cancer (see Abortion ‘triples breast cancer risk’: Fourth study finds terminations linked to disease by Simon Caldwell posted 6/23/2010 on the Daily Mail).

An abortion can triple a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say.

A team of scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease.

While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion.

Other factors included the onset of the menopause and smoking.

The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer…

But Cancer Research UK questioned the accuracy of the figures and said women should not be unduly worried.

Dr Kat Arney, the charity’s science information manager, said: ‘This is a very small study of only 300 women, so there are likely to be statistical errors in a sample of this size…

Although the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has acknowledged the possibility of an abortion-breast cancer link, most medical professionals in Britain remain unconvinced…

Those who believe there is a link say breast cancer is caused by high levels of oestradiol, a hormone that stimulates breast growth during pregnancy.

Its effects are minimised in women who take pregnancy to full term but it remains at dangerous levels in those who have abortions.

There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year.

At the least women who have had an abortion, who used birth control to delay pregnancy or who used formula instead of breast feeding should increase their breast cancer screenings.  Even if they politically object to the findings of these reports.  If detected early enough survival rates are far greater.  So just as people who smoke should start having stress tests earlier to detect heart disease so should women who may be at higher risk of breast cancer have earlier and more frequent screenings than women who did not have an abortion, did not delay their pregnancies or breast fed their babies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

FT107: “Birth control pills prevent a natural biological function while ED pills restore one.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Women take Birth Control Pills to have Sex without it resulting in the Miracle of Life or a Real Inconvenience

The human body is a complex machine with one biological purpose.  To propagate the species.  That is, to make babies.  Humans may have other purposes.  Depending on your religion.  Or lack thereof.  But biologically speaking everything we do as humans is to sustain our lives so we can make babies.  Just like other animals on this planet.  And all organisms that lay eggs or give live birth.  At the most basic level we are just baby-making machines.  It’s the natural order of things.  Our biological purpose.  Which explains why we have a sex drive.  And why we spade and neuter stray cats.

The great George Michael explained this sex drive well in song (excerpted here):

It’s natural
It’s chemical
It’s logical
Habitual
It’s sensual
But most of all
Sex is something we should do
Sex is something for me and you
Sex is natural
Sex is good
Not everybody does it
But everybody should
Sex is natural
sex is fun
Sex is best when it’s one on one

(From George Michael’s I Want Your Sex.)

Not familiar with George Michael?  Am I dating myself?  Just ask your parents who George Michael is.  Chances are your mom will make a face or a sound you don’t want to see or hear as she recalls a primeval lust from yesteryear.  But this is sex.  And it’s all these things for one reason.  Biologically speaking, that is.  To start up that biological machine.  And to make it do what it was meant to do.  Make babies.

Now there are those who want to alter the natural order of things.  Who enjoy having sex.  Lots and lots of sex.  In fact, they can’t get enough of that sex.  But they don’t want the natural output of that biological machine.  So they practice birth control.  Men wear condoms.  Women take birth control pills.  Among other things.  To prevent all of that fun from resulting in the miracle of life.  Or a real inconvenience.  Depending on your religious views.  Or lack thereof.

Women who have Abortions have Higher Incidences of Breast Cancer than Women who take Birth Control Pills or who have Babies 

Cigarettes introduce unnatural chemicals into the human body.  Harming the human body.  So the government places great sin taxes on them to dissuade us from smoking.  They warn us of the dangers to scare us into not smoking.  And they sue the tobacco companies because they have lots of money.  And blame them for kids smoking.  Not their music, movie and television heroes.  (What guitar hero doesn’t have a cigarette dangling from their lips as they play?)  Eating poorly can harm the human body, too.  And government is now taking steps to protect people from bad food.  Not quite like they do with cigarettes.  Yet.  But they are working in that direction.

Obamacare is forcing people to buy health insurance.  Because, they say, many of us are harming ourselves through poor lifestyle choices.  Such as smoking.  Or eating poorly.  And it’s not fair that we go to the emergency room for free health care.  Because it just makes health insurance more expensive for those who do buy it.  To cover the costs for all of those uninsured emergency room visits.  So Obamacare wants to use the heavy hand of government to make people either make better lifestyle choices.  Or pay for the consequences of their poor lifestyle choices.

A recent study has shown links between rising incidences of breast cancer and the lack of using breasts for their biological purpose.  Feeding babies.  Women who bottle feed have higher incidences of breast cancer than women who breast feed.  Women who take birth control pills have higher incidences of breast cancer than women who have babies.  And women who have abortions have higher incidences of breast cancer than women who take birth control pills.  The study indicates that it’s the interruption of the natural biological process of converting the breast tissue to produce milk causing the increase in the incidences of breast cancer.  And stopping the conversion of tissue after the process starts (i.e., having an abortion) has the most harmful affect on the breast tissue.  Leaving mutated cells that become cancerous.

Any Political Candidate that Helps Young People have Sex is Sure to get their Vote

Obamacare includes provisions that require insurance providers to provide birth control and abortion.  They call these women’s health issues.  Because the ‘miracle of life’ or that ‘great inconvenience’ (depending on your religious views or lack thereof) can be very harmful if carried to term.  Thus fulfilling the natural order of things.  The biological purpose of our human machines.  So Obamacare discourages us from smoking and eating poorly because of the costly and harmful consequences of these lifestyle choices.  But they encourage another potentially harmful lifestyle choice.  Having sex without making babies.  Which may increase the incidences of breast cancer.  The very program that is supposed to make us choose healthier lifestyles and accept the consequences of poor lifestyle choices encourages women to choose an unhealthy lifestyle that may give them breast cancer.  Or a venereal disease.  Which may happen with all that sex with multiple partners.  Unless they’re following the advice of George Michael.  And keeping it one on one.

Of course, these are primeval views.  Much like that primeval sex drive.  Only we’re supposed to get over our primeval views on making babies.  So women are free to enjoy careers.  And have as much consequence-free sex as they desire.  Something that pleases a lot of men.  Probably more men than women.  Especially young men.  Who have one thing on their mind.  And couldn’t ask for anything more than free-spirited and empowered women with access to all the women’s health products and services she so desires.  And any political candidate that helps these young people to have as much sex as they want is sure to get their vote.  So it’s no surprise that the Democrats get the youth vote.  Because the Democrats are so unlike these kids’ parents.

So women demand their birth control.  For their health.  And demand that their health insurance plans pay for it.  Or the taxpayers.  Because it’s an issue of women’s health.  That we can address in no other way.  (Excluding abstinence, marriage, paying for your own birth control, etc.)  In fact they say it’s no different than men’s erectile dysfunction (ED) pills.  But there is a slight difference.  The ED pills try to restore a biological function.  Whereas birth control tries to prevent one.  ED pills tries to restore the human baby-making machine.  While birth control pills tries to shut that machine down.  Contrary to the natural order.  And our biological purpose. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Study links Breast Cancer to Birth Control and Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 11th, 2012

Week in Review

We live in a very sexualized world.  And a very liberated world.  Women are encouraged to enjoy their sexuality.  And they are.  They have bought a fortune of sexy lingerie from Victoria’s Secret.  Even watch their annual lingerie show celebrating the female body.  Yes, even the ladies watch this fashion show.  Because both women and men are buying their products.  Including the Miracle Bra.  To showcase their breasts.  Which women like to showcase.  And men like to window shop at these showcases.  For men like breasts.

So in this sexualized and liberated world we empower women by letting them get sexy to please men.  Not really sure how that empowers them but it does.  I heard women say so.  I’m not complaining, mind you.  I mean, who doesn’t enjoy window shopping?  But as it turns out breasts have another purpose besides pleasing men.  They have a physiological purpose.  They’re part of a system that produces milk for babies.  A pretty complex system.  That goes through a metamorphosis when a woman gets pregnant.  Biological changes.  Changes at the cell level.  Complex stuff for a complex system.  But in the modern era of birth control and abortion, that process is getting interrupted.  Or prevented from happening.  And apparently for the human body to remain healthy this process needs to happen.  For when it’s not allowed to something bad happens.

Research has shown that babies who are breast-fed have fewer allergies than babies who are bottle-fed.  Which could, perhaps, explain an explosion in allergy problems.  But mothers who don’t become mothers are apparently doing even more harm to themselves.  Women who don’t have babies, who have babies late in life, women who have abortions and women who bottle-feed their babies have higher incidences of breast cancer.  Apparently due to the prevention or interruption of that biological metamorphosis.  Stopping that change in cells mid-change.  Leaving an unnatural cell.  And apparently a cell susceptible to cancer.

As women who have children at a younger age and don’t have abortions have lower incidences of breast cancer this will be a very contentious issue.  (As breast feeding is back in vogue that part of the study shouldn’t prove to be contentious).  The science will be challenged and challenged again.  For if these findings are proven true, they say a healthy woman is a mother.  Raising a family.  Which many in the political debate will find unacceptable.  So read the study (see The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors by Patrick S. Carroll posted on jpands.org).  Discuss it with your doctor.  And get other medical opinions.  Just be informed.  And be aware of all the information out there.  Even the information that proves not to be popular.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,