Science is hiding the real cause of breast cancer
On the side of Bethsheba’s left breast
are markings that may be the first recorded image of breast cancer in history.
The uncomfortable truth is that science is concealing the fact that fluctuating levels of female hormones, progesterone and especially estrogen are the real cause of breast cancer.
The image that introduces this post is that of Basheba, the wife of King David, painted by Rembrandt in 1654. On the side of the left breast are distinctive marks that appear to be the surface manifestation of some process beneath the skin. It was proposed by some Australian doctors that these marks were Peau d'orange, literally the skin of an orange, the outward signs of underlying breast cancer, which at the time of the painting, would have been unknown to either subject or artist.
There has been much debate about this in scientific literature with many disputing this conclusion but, as a person who has seen this sign, I can say that it reminds me very much of what I have noted with this disease.
Breast cancer is the most common metastatic disease (cancer) in the population of women who do not smoke.
The risks that lead to the real cause of breast cancer are well known and delineated but a corrupted and timid science will not expose them. What follows is the explanation.
In 2006, while working in the production rooms of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, a site overlooking the Brisbane River, eleven of its female staff were diagnosed with breast cancer. This event was described as a “cancer cluster” a term used to describe the occurrence of cancer in one area at a rate greatly in excess of the occurrence of that disease among the female population as a whole.
A cancer cluster is a collection of cases of the same sort of cancer occurring more frequently in a population who live in the same area and are exposed to the same living conditions and climate. When a larger number of cases occur in a group where the incidence of the disease is relatively low, people who have no scientific background are likely to conclude that the population where the cluster has occurred has been exposed to a chemical, radio waves, climatic effect or other cause which has greatly increased the rate.
This can mostly be dismissed as irrational because no statistical effect is evenly spread across a population. For example, the suicide rate in the Western world is surprisingly constant at 11 per 100 thousand in European populations but in isolated groups it is actually much higher, but that does not mean that the group is exposed to the same chemicals or are eating the same food for example or subject to some other common factor that predisposed them to kill themselves.
There are, however, examples where a cluster of cases is clearly associated with an obvious cause. After nuclear explosions and nuclear accidents, for example, we know that the incidence of thyroid cancer is much higher, but this is rational because we know that the population has been exposed to radiation.
Sometimes, though not often, a cancer cluster, especially of an unusual cancer discloses a previously unknown causation. This was the case with the cancer mesothelioma which occurred in a group exposed to asbestos.
On the other hand, a research group in the United States studied 428 cancer cluster events (comprising a mixture of different cancers) and found that no definite cause could be found for most of them and that in the vast majority of cases they were statistical anomalies.
What happened to the investigation into the ABC studios in Toowong Brisbane where the 11 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed is fascinating and leads to two startling conclusions.
The first is that science and the scientific method are doomed. The second is that there was a real cause for the breast cancer cluster at the Australian Broadcasting Commission and this was missed which has had profound effects for women ever since.
The Commission tasked with examining the cause of the cancer cluster was headed by an epidemiologist, Professor Armstrong.
A sensible person, familiar with the scientific process. would have some understanding of how doctors, who are epidemiologists, go about their work collecting as much information as they can about the environment where the cancer cluster occurs and about the population of people who were subject to the disease.
Then something extraordinary happened. The doctors led by Professor Armstrong were bluntly told by the women at the Toowong site that they were refusing to cooperate with the study,
The researchers were told on mass by the women working at the Toowong site, that they were not going to provide any details about their medical history, their history of taking hormones their maternal history including procedures or even their history of non-breast cancer.
As far as the women were concerned the cancer cluster had nothing to do with them or their medical histories rather it was caused by some problem in the environment, electromagnetic waves, water supply, shift work or some other source outside them and their private and personal stories and, as far as they were concerned, the investigation was to get on and do its scientific business and come up with this cause.
At this point, and this is crucial for the way science proceeds thereafter, finding themselves completely hamstrung, the researchers should have politely declined to continue. But they did continue. Details of this are given by Dr. Norman Swan in an ABC broadcast in 2007.
We make the mistake of believing that modern science will proceed indifferent to sentiment and politics. My colleagues and I believed until the end of last century that science and medicine would reveal truths, even if uncomfortable ones.
What we did not realize was that Governments and their investigative commissions, if they have the merest hint that something that goes against the political narrative might be revealed, they just don’t go there.
This was redolent of my experience as a member of a panel of the Australian Medical Association tasked with looking into Aboriginal Deaths in custody and comparing them to white deaths. When we responded to the inquiry with an obvious question. “What method were we to use to differentiate Aboriginal people who committed suicide from those who were white? “The inquiry responded by sacking us.
Professor Anderson and his team, hopelessly hampered as they were by these restrictions on their inquiries nonetheless came up with an answer. Whatever was ‘“causing” this cluster it had nothing to do with radio waves or water and anything in the environment in which the women worked.
After the Armstrong report was concluded and failed to find any environmental cause for the cluster, the women employees flexed their muscle again and made it clear that despite Professor Anderson’s findings they were not going to work on the Toowong site under any circumstances.
This response is what is commonly known in accommodation circles as the “haunted room”. That means that if it is common knowledge that a room or building is “haunted” then it must be avoided and not rented at all costs.
The Australian Broadcasting Commission capitulated and moved to another building. Why did they bother to hold an expensive inquiry in the first place? If we are to proceed through life with “bad luck”, superstition and buildings that are “jinxed” (from the Greek term for bad omen or wry-necked bird) then why involve science at all.
Henceforth science and scientific investigation, the truth in other words, would take second place to sentiment, to feelings. Like an indestructible mold this attitude would come to infect all of science and its many manifestations would begin to damage the credibility of all of science and as a result do very real harm to people on a wide scale.
The researchers, however, lost insight into something more important and profound that would be missed by their ham-fisted study, the real cause of breast cancer.
As time has passed since that investigation into the cancer cluster took place, more and more fake science, doctored results and corrupt research came to light, not just in medical science but even physics.
People place a great deal of faith in the scientific process, especially medical science but I give two other revelations that prove that the corruption of this process in medicine is not isolated.
The first of these relates to antidepressant medication and the treatment of depression.
Hailed as a breakthrough in the treatment of depression a new class of drugs, Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) were developed and the psychiatric community prescribed them believing they could abolish depression long term. But it was all a lie.
The marvelous results, claimed by drug companies who developed the antidepressants were “doctored” to exercise a pun. Studies which found no effect, were buried and those with positive effects were promoted.
Touted as safe with few side effects, in fact, symptoms of withdrawal from these drugs could be severe. Despite their over use, the incidence of depression and suicide have not fallen
The story concerning the treatment of dementia, in most cases Alzheimer’s disease, has fared even worse. Although science has failed to find the true cause of this condition this has not prevented drug companies from profiting from it, giving false hope to poor relatives.
Drug companies have spent millions of dollars developing so-called treatments for dementia including a host of expensive drugs. Despite millions of dollars spent on so-called research into these drugs and on producing the drugs and encouraging poor gullible relatives to buy them, none of them have any effect on the disease even failing to slow it down.
But this fakery is not confined to medical science. It has even been exposed to physics as Sabine Hossenfelder a prominent physics communicator of considerable standing laments. She has spent her career exposing shoddy research and financial fraud in physics university faculties.
In some ways what happened in the ABC studios in Brisbane is more egregious because it is vital that women understand what is going on the motives behind it, and, above all, the risks associated with a certain lifestyle because they are either not being told this or are refusing to acknowledge it and the duty of doctors is to ensure that they are aware of the causes of breast cancer.
The Real Cause of Breast Cancer
There are two hereditary forms of breast cancer, and they are associated with what is called the Braca genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2: In normal cells, these genes help make proteins that repair damaged DNA. Mutated versions of these genes can lead to abnormal cell growth, which can lead to cancer.
However, these hereditary forms explain only 1 in 400 cases of breast cancer. It is the other causes that are of real concern.
While the average age of onset of breast cancer is 62, we know that the actual mutation in the cells in the breast leading to cancer is ten years earlier beginning at an average age of 52. The cancers which occur during the younger reproductive years are much more deadly and often much more rapid in onset.
in breast tissue cells have more chance of turning cancerous than other parts of the body during pregnancy because breast tissue has to change dramatically during the pregnant state in order for glands in the breast to secrete milk. It is important to emphasize that it is not breast-feeding, which is increasing the risk of cancer, it is the exposure of these breast cells to rapid changes in hormones.
If we take a look at the risk factors for the early onset more deadly breast cancer, we discover the appalling reality that is concealed from most women which is that the sum of those factors, results in a risk so high it is as carcinogenic, cancer producing, than cigarette smoking is for lung cancer. Young women must realize that heavy exposure of breast tissue to fluctuating levels of progesterone and both synthetic and natural estrogen is responsible.
Risk factors that are associated with increased oestrogen levels, such as age at menarche, age at menopause, and obesity as well as hormonal factors per se play a key role in the aetiology of breast cancer. Alexander Kluttig 1,*, Andrea Schmidt-Pokrzywniak. National Library of Medicine April 2007 .
The rate of breast cancer in younger women has doubled in the last 20 years and there can be no other explanation for it than it is associated with a change in the lifestyle of women.
The refusal to acknowledge this explains the reason why the women at the Australian Broadcasting Studios flatly refused to allow their medical histories to be taken into account. In short, they refused to allow it might be something that they were doing that was causing the cluster.
Why did they refuse to acknowledge it and why does this attitude continue? This is called the defense of denial a psychological term and it is associated with cognitive dissonance, a feeling of severe discomfort when holding markedly conflicting beliefs. In short, it is the mechanism that enables smokers to continue smoking.
In this, women are aided and abetted by modern scientific literature, the media, and radical feminist ideology.
Indeed after the study was conducted the cluster of eleven had expanded to sixteen individuals. This is a worrying example of politicization of science research. If a line of inquiry appears to challenge the political narrative, which is that the liberated lifestyles of women might actually be leading to cancer, it must be fiercely opposed. This is dangerous and foolish.
Cancer is not a political entity. Whatever is causing it must be determined for the health and safety of countless women that follow. When we look closely at these risk factors it becomes immediately obvious why the quest for the truth about the origins of breast cancer is so strongly resisted.
The population of women who worked at the ABC and in broadcasting fall into a category of elite upper middle class educated females. They have features in common with many groups of women in the workforce. They have their children later in life, they have a higher rate of caesarean or surgically assisted births, they regularly use oral contraceptives which they take on and off episodically over a long period, they have higher rates of divorce, usually one or more abortions, they breast-feed for limited periods, drink more alcohol and struggle with their weight finding it hard to get time to exercise. Even more concerning is the fact that the rate of cigarette smoking is increasing in this group.
Because of the way that research is conducted, researchers usually only study single factors to see if they are associated with increased risk of cancer. Each of these factors that I have listed are associated with increased risk for breast cancer, but the factors as a whole have a compounding effect.
That compounding effect is rarely researched but when it is, it becomes obvious that the real cause of breast cancer is not oestrogen levels per se it is fluctuating oestogen levels. When all these are taken into account especially their effect on oestrogen levels, the risk becomes much higher, as toxic as smoking is for lung cancer.
Breast cancer and especially the more dangerous earlier onset forms are increasing. In 1982 from Australian Cancer Council figures, 5,300 new cases of breast cancer were diagnosed but in 2022 that number had grown to 19,000. This is a medical emergency.
The sixteen cases of breast cancer diagnosed at the ABC studios begin to look less like a cluster and somewhere nearer to the norm.
Unfortunately today all of us know someone who has been diagnosed with breast cancer but more than this everyone knows or has had someone in their family die of breast cancer.
The decision of the women at the ABC studios to not cooperate with the Armstrong Inquiry reflects the strong view that when we quantify risk factors of developing cancer, society does not want to “blame” women who are entitled to live a lifestyle that they choose without being criticized for it. They need to know what this means for them.
But a refusal to accept scientific investigation is nonsense because medical science is supposed to get to the facts without fear or favor. The facts are that the lifestyles of young women are causing the rise of a deadly painful disease, and they need to know and be taught about that. But all this is happening at a time when the scientific project is in decline, corrupted politicized, unproductive and at a time when good dispassionate research is most needed.
Fluctuating levels of female hormones especially oestrogen, directly caused by the life style of modern women is the real cause of breast cancer.