It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do you really have cancer?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:35 AM
To begin with, a bit of background...
I lost both my parents to cancer, so Iam familiar with all the tests, treatments, etc..and after seeing all that educated myself on naturopathic cures, and as much info on cancer as I could.
Now to me, cancer is a business...huge amounts go into into so called research, drugs, facilities and the salaries of oncologists.
That being is my story...
About 11 years ago I got a call from my general practitioner. He stated that a PAP test I had done a year ago showed precancerous cells, and he wanted to do another test to confirm. First off I said.."Why didn't you tell me a year ago?" he said he didn't feel it was relevant.He said THE LAB called him and asked me to go in for another test.
I told him I felt fine, nothing irregular..and he said I could just be asymptomatic.
So in I go for another test..results of course..POSITIVE, cervical cancer.He wants to do exploratory surgery. Surgery????!!!!!
I was skeptical. Why out of the blue does a lab call a doctor about a test done a year previously?
I said I wanted a second opinion. He referred me to another doctor. Of course doc #2, doesn't want to argue with doc #1, especially in a small town.
So I go to doc #3..without a referral, and without telling him why..I ask for a PAP test.
I make sure it is sent to a different lab.
Results- NEGATIVE.
My general practitioner got a blast from me, over the fact I was given positive results and was being railroaded into cancer treatment that I didn't need.He hounded me for six months after, to go for the "exploratory surgery", still.
11 years later, and still no positive test results.
This is my warning to others..get a second opinion, get a third opinion..I don't care how many you get but advocate for yourself. Doctors do not make money if you are healthy- remember that. Never, ever take a positive cancer result as fact.

May 11 (Bloomberg) -- A third of men and a quarter of women undergoing cancer screening will get false positive results by the time they have undergone four tests, which can lead to inappropriate medical procedures, a study found.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:54 AM
I did have cancer. Melanoma.

I was a sun worshiper and in my youth here in the mile high rockies, usually went shirtless, cutoffs and huaraches most of the year.

Six years ago my GF noticed a strange freckle on my chest and demanded I have it looked at by a dermatologist. I resisted but It's a good thing I relented
because it was stage 3 melanoma and just about to metastasize, spread to
my lymphatic system and kill me. My dermatologist cut a fair sized slice out of my chest and have not had a recurrence of melanoma. But my dermatologist left me with a sobering thought... she said "the cancer that will kill you will probably never be detected or even noticed"

AD, however I do feel their is a "cancer industry" promoted by the HMOs and big pharma. My case wasn't a part of it.

Wear your sun screen!!

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by AccessDenied

I just had my first pap two weeks ago, the results aren't back yet. But my midwives were like "yeah you should just have it done once a year anyway."

I have a good friend who got HPV and cervical cancer when she was my age. So it's worth getting tested.

I've never heard of anyone getting a false positive for cancer but I guess it does happen, just like there are false positives for other tests, too.

My second cousin's husband was diagnosed with cancer a few weeks ago, stage 4 cancer that had metastasized. He didn't feel sick. He had labs done awhile before with completely abnormal results but the doctor missed the numbers or something and they didn't pick up on it. My mom's a Legal Nurse Consultant, too, so she's working with my second cousin to figure out why the doctor didn't even tell him his labs were way off before the cancer got so bad.

It's messed up. I don't know.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:56 PM
Just to clarify- not all test results should be treated like mine were.
Whaaa, in your case..definitely a good thing you took action when you did.
My point was simply that I felt I was being railroaded, and something was amiss...

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Raven, that is a point as abnormal test should have been told to him in the first place, then he could have taken action sooner.
Now his prospects have narrowed considerably for treatment options.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:55 PM
I am most interested in this topic and after replying to another topic about the forced surgery on a mentally incapacitated woman to have her fallopian tubes and ovaries removed, by force if necessary, to prevent her dying from cancer, I would like to share some information about the "cancer" phenomena that seems to exist currently.

At this point I have to give my apologies though as it is late here and I have an early start, and I do not have the information to hand, but I will be back in the next couple of days to add to the thread, about not only my experience with "false positives" but that of many others and the unnecessary surgery that many woman have undergone and the subsequent problems they have, when if fact, cervical cancer is actually quite rare and my fear is that the repeated testing and treatment for supposed pre-cancerous anomalies may possibly create terminal conditions. (not just with cervical cancer but others as well, which I have anecdotal evidence of)

Though I would like to say that I understand the pain and loss for those who have experienced these terrible illnesses and am in no way asserting they don't exist or have been manufactured by the medical profession, I just feel that perhaps it is blown out of proportion and that there is a lot of unnecessary investigation and treatment carried out of huge swathes of the population, to determine the cause and treatment of far smaller numbers, with an unknown risk.

new topics

top topics

log in