www.breastcancer-cured.com
Breast Cancer - Cured
Women for Breast Cancer Truth


    Good evening to all of you, dear ladies, dear friends!

    It is not often that I feel, if not intimidated, but at least, somewhat awed by my audience.
    The majority of you, who are sitting in this auditorium, went through an ordeal that is
    among the most severe endurance tests in existence. Not only have you experienced a life
    threatening health crisis, you also found the strength and the courage to face it and to
    overcome it. You are survivors in the most important sense of the word, because you did
    not survive by chance, but by fighting and defeating your enemy at every step of the way.
    For this, permit me to express my profound respect and admiration.

    The treatment of breast cancer is a complex issue. Tonight I want to focus on the
    detection and monitoring of the disease. The views I wish to express will sound extremely
    controversial. They will seem to fly in the face of what most people accept as normal,
    everyday reality. Yet, everything you will hear is supported by clinical data and scientific
    evidence.

    Let us begin with the diagnosis of cancer. In most cases, cancer diagnosis is based on
    mammograms, X rays, MRIs, and PETscans. By the time breast cancer shows up in such
    tests, the disease has reached quite an advanced stage, justifying, at least according to
    standard oncological practice, an aggressive, high-dose toxic treatment protocol. These
    diagnostic procedures, these tests used to detect malignancies, are invasive, occasionally
    quite painful, with varying degrees of potentially harmful results, and with varying levels of
    false positive/negative errors. At the same time, there exist other, approved and legal
    diagnostic methods that are safe, non-invasive, and 100% accurate. Yet, oncology refuses
    to use them. Let us take a closer look at these procedures.

    (Here Dr. Taliano describes several diagnostic technologies. The information is available in
    the Reports on this website.)

    What are the therapeutic consequences of refusing the application of these diagnostic
    modalities? As I said before, digital thermal imaging is capable of showing, safely and with
    100% accuracy (no false positives or negatives) the early formulation of malignancies 10-
    12 years before any of the standard methods can detect them.  Please note, that we are
    not discussing a theoretical idea; thermal imaging for breast cancer patients is a service
    that is available at hundreds of private offices both in European countries, and in North
    America; it is legal, approved, safe and accurate. Yet, oncologists refuse to acknowledge it,
    and most breast cancer patients have never heard of it. What is the result of suppressing
    this knowledge, and excluding it from standard oncological practice?

    By utilizing a very precise detecting/monitoring technique, three very important
    therapeutic results can be achieved.

    First, breast cancer can be detected at a microscopic level, where its elimination is simple
    and fast. This will prevent the development of breast cancer into a life threatening
    condition. Second, thermal imaging can monitor the breast cancer treatment, until the
    cancer is completely gone. Third, it will prevent the recurrence of the cancer by detecting it
    at a level where it is only a tendency or a potential problem instead of an actual cellular
    corruption.

    The exclusion of precise monitoring techniques from general oncological practice is the
    cause of grave therapeutic failures. Breast cancer is only detected at a level where the
    tumor, or its metabolic activity, can be visually observed. As a result, the diagnosis comes
    far too late for early intervention. There is nothing early in a breast cancer condition where
    one can see the tumor by standard methods. The second consequence of a crude
    monitoring technique is that it provides the patient with false assurance. The verdict, at the
    end of the treatment, "No sign of the cancer; you are clean" is based on inferior methods,
    and as such, it is entirely false. If the same patient would undergo a digital thermal imaging
    test, the cancer would clearly show up, and it would be obvious that a recurrence is only a
    matter of time. Finally, this practice condemns the patient to an ever present worry about a
    recurrence.

    The concept of the 5-year survival, and mastectomy are closely connected, and both result
    from the suppression of precise cancer monitoring methods.

    Cancer is the only disease where the success of the treatment is measured with a 5-year
    survival period. Why did oncology find it necessary to come up with such a bizarre and
    meaningless concept? The answer is obvious. The long-term survival rate is so poor, that
    something had to be created to counterbalance the bad publicity. It is relatively easy to
    find statistical data about the 5-year survival rate among breast cancer patients. Try to find
    information on 10, 12, 15 year survival, and you will run into great difficulties. The data is
    well hidden, protected, and when you find it, distorted.

    If every patient, having finished her full standard treatment protocol, would be tested
    using the most precise technique available, it would be found that every single one of them
    still has cancer at an easily detectable level.

    Oncology doesn't try to cure breast cancer; it is trying to increase the percentage of 5-year
    survival. This serves important public relation purposes, without intruding on the long-
    range financial benefits of the establishment. This is, where the concept of cutting off the
    breasts of women comes in as a "preventive measure".

    I come from a cultural background where the grace, beauty and sanctity of the female
    body is respected, admired, and worshipped with an artistic and spiritual conviction. The
    casual sacrifice of women's breasts would be totally alien to me under any circumstances.
    When it is done to cover up a financial and political agenda, and when the cover-up is
    carried out with the knowledge and tacit approval of the medical community, the moral and
    professional implications are devastating.

    All this leads us to several inescapable conclusions. One is that chemotherapy almost never
    cures cancer. It only suppresses it to a level where it becomes undetectable by standard
    methods. For reasons best known to the oncological profession, this fact is carefully
    hidden from the public view, and the monitoring technology that would uncover it is
    rigorously suppressed.

    When the standard treatment is finished, and the patient has received just about the
    maximum dose of toxic drugs she can tolerate, she is usually told that although she is
    cancer free, it can come back at any moment. In order to prevent the recurrence, her
    breast must come off. The risk is too large to leave it in place. Her breast has become
    something hostile, a danger to her life, a potential aberration.

    At this point, thermal imaging would show the doctor exactly where the cancer stands, and
    there are a number of non-toxic, powerful and benign treatments available that would
    completely take care of the remaining cancer. The oncologist will not use the monitoring
    procedure that would show him the real status of the disease, and will not consider a non-
    toxic potentiated protocol that would eliminate it. He will want to cut off the breast,
    because he knows both from experience, and from cancer statistics, that the disease has
    not been eliminated, and it will come back. However, removing the breast, and some other
    tissues, will slow down the re-emergence of the cancer, and the 5-year survival will
    become more of a possibility.

    This is the reason why women are terrorized into the acceptance of mastectomy. There is
    not an iota clinical evidence anywhere in the medical literature that single or double
    mastectomy has ever improved the long-term survival chances of breast cancer patients. It
    is a statistical trick, a public relation strategy, without the slightest scientific or therapeutic
    merit.

    Every woman should be screened from the age of 12 against breast cancer, not with a
    harmful, profit-driven protocol like mammography which, besides being unreliable and
    painful, is a potentially cancer causing procedure, but by digital thermal imaging. The
    method, if used on a large scale, would be inexpensive, and 100% accurate. As a result,
    breast malignancies would be caught at a microscopic level, and breast cancer, as a life
    threatening disease, would disappear. The tools for this to happen are available since
    decades, but the political will and the fundamental moral qualities necessary to implement it
    are sadly missing.

    You, who are sitting here in front of me, alive and well, have not only conquered breast
    cancer. You have survived the treatment of breast cancer; you have survived your
    encounter with your oncologist. Congratulations.

    Thank you for the opportunity for meeting you and speaking to you. If you have any
    questions, I will be glad to answer them.

    (A question/answer period follows.)
Mastectomy:
The real reason
Fabrizio Taliano MD, PhD.

September 2006, Rome
at the annual meeting of the
Breast Cancer Survivors' Society
LECTURE 2 (excerpts)