Are the benefits of biopsies really worth the risk?

[Sherbert]

To haidut danny and anyone else on the forum who might know:
does anyone happen to have read or heard ray's view on the value of #biopsies per se, particularly of internal organs?
The conventional view, needless to say, often is said that the benefit is worth the risk. but is it?
But alternatively (as was once discussed by Ray on GEnergyPodcast) if all illness is preceded by injury (big (eg #concussions) or small) (sorry i forget the theoretician's name) and infection or disease is seeming only an after-effect, then wouldn't a cut (#trauma), albeit even a small one, invite or encourage progression of ailments? hope that is clear enough.
Thanks for considering my question.

RiP 🕊 Ray Peat

 

[mostlylurking]

To haidut danny and anyone else on the forum who might know:
does anyone happen to have read or heard ray's view on the value of #biopsies per se, particularly of internal organs?
The conventional view, needless to say, often is said that the benefit is worth the risk. but is it?
But alternatively (as was once discussed by Ray on GEnergyPodcast) if all illness is preceded by injury (big (eg #concussions) or small) (sorry i forget the theoretician's name) and infection or disease is seeming only an after-effect, then wouldn't a cut (#trauma), albeit even a small one, invite or encourage progression of ailments? hope that is clear enough.
Thanks for considering my question.

RiP 🕊 Ray Peat

I think that listening to the discussions about this with Ray Peat are the most helpful. You can go to Bioenergetic Search and type in Biopsy and multiple shows pop up. My own takeaway is that biopsies are dangerous and will make cancer spread. The trauma isn't worth the risk. That said, the doctor will want scans. MRI without contrasting dye is safer; ultra sound is also a safer option. CT scans are like multiple xrays and should be avoided. Avoid the MRI contrast dye, Gadolinium; it's a heavy metal and dangerous. They can get good enough pictures without it, at least that was the case for me. The doctor wasn't happy with my decision for no dye but too bad. The MRI was clear enough for the radiologist to be able to read and determine that I didn't need that surgery after all.

 

[cdg]

I think that listening to the discussions about this with Ray Peat are the most helpful. You can go to Bioenergetic Search and type in Biopsy and multiple shows pop up. My own takeaway is that biopsies are dangerous and will make cancer spread. The trauma isn't worth the risk. That said, the doctor will want scans. MRI without contrasting dye is safer; ultra sound is also a safer option. CT scans are like multiple xrays and should be avoided. Avoid the MRI contrast dye, Gadolinium; it's a heavy metal and dangerous. They can get good enough pictures without it, at least that was the case for me. The doctor wasn't happy with my decision for no dye but too bad. The MRI was clear enough for the radiologist to be able to read and determine that I didn't need that surgery after all.

Agree there was a great video by Dr, Duesberg:

"The Best Way to Reduce Risk of Breast Cancer is to Say No to Screening!, 8 minthe" That got taken of youtube. If anyone finds it let me know, Thx

 

[mostlylurking]

Agree here what there was great video by Dr, Duesberg:

There's a Ray Peat quote somewhere that said something like 75% of the breast cancers today are caused by mammograms. Edit: he actually said 3/4s of cancers are caused by medical radiation.
Hah!! I found it!! He might have been quoting John Gofman, I can't tell.

View: https://youtu.be/4dhXhI--ON0?t=3035

 

[tankasnowgod]

does anyone happen to have read or heard ray's view on the value of #biopsies per se, particularly of internal organs?

Are there any benefits to biopsies?

 

[Sherbert]

I think that listening to the discussions about this with Ray Peat are the most helpful. You can go to Bioenergetic Search and type in Biopsy and multiple shows pop up. My own takeaway is that biopsies are dangerous and will make cancer spread. The trauma isn't worth the risk. That said, the doctor will want scans. MRI without contrasting dye is safer; ultra sound is also a safer option. CT scans are like multiple xrays and should be avoided. Avoid the MRI contrast dye, Gadolinium; it's a heavy metal and dangerous. They can get good enough pictures without it, at least that was the case for me. The doctor wasn't happy with my decision for no dye but too bad. The MRI was clear enough for the radiologist to be able to read and determine that I didn't need that surgery after all.

Thankyou.. very helpful.. pretty much think like you about all thatbut willgo to bio energetic search and listen.. This was my first reply on this forum.. happy to be on it. Thanks again.

 

[mostlylurking]

Thankyou.. very helpful.. pretty much think like you about all thatbut willgo to bio energetic search and listen.. This was my first reply on this forum.. happy to be on it. Thanks again.

you're welcome, glad to help.

 

[Sherbert]

Are there any benefits to biopsies?

haha ..Thanks

 

[mostlylurking]

Are there any benefits to biopsies?

It generates money for the doctors and the hospital. There's that.

 

[tankasnowgod]

haha ..Thanks

But, um, are there?

I think the main "benefit" of biopsy is detection of "cancer." Or, maybe other diseases.

I, personally, don't think there is any "benefit" to detecting cancer in most situations, unless it is incredibly obvious and/or debilitating. Mostly, because the the so called "treatments" are still so barbaric, it's amazing (in some ways) that they are even still legal, or that anyone consents to them.

Still basically radiation, chemo, and surgery. I can see some surgery being potentially beneficial (but most not), while I tend to think the other two treatments do nothing but destroy the patient and shorten life.

How are two of the most potent carcinogens on the planet, radiation and chemo, the two "go to" treatments of cancer? It's as over the top ridiculous as a sledgehammer to the head being the main "treatment" for headaches.

Considering the same doctors (or brotherhood of doctors) can conjure up cause of death after hitting their "patients" with insane doses of both radiation and chemo, I would think something like 80% (or more) of "cancer deaths" are actually radiation and/or drug overdose/poisoning deaths. It's a neat (but devilish) trick to re-brand side effects of the "treatments" as symptoms of the "disease," thus justifying more "treatments," while only making the disease worse. Which, again, justifies more treatments, in a money and health sucking merry go round, till the patient presses on to the next realm.

So, I don't see a gateway to that morbid carnival as any sort of "benefit."

It generates money for the doctors and the hospital. There's that.

Well, yeah. I was thinking health wise.

 

[Elderflower j58]

Ray Peat answer to section of my question about biopsy.

Dear Dr Peat
Thank you so much for your prompt response to my problem.
I have attached a photo of my care plan. There may be some info in there that you can decipher?
I had a face-to-face appointment with my gynecologist yesterday Friday the 17th she seemed to me to be avoiding what I would call slightly good news regarding my condition but very reluctantly agreed to my wishes which are just the removal of cyst and my left ovary as it is enveloped by the cyst. The news which I think is good... is what she did not mention and had painted a pretty poor picture the week before.
That my womb uterus cervix could have Cancer or cancer markers or abnormal cells , and other parts of my body could have cancer markers, these parts of my body were not mentioned at all and when I asked her was my womb uterus cervix showing anything abnormal she said they were fine .
She does want to do a biopsy on the smaller 5cm cyst that is on my right ovary I'm not sure this would be to my advantage according to your excellent estrogen progesterone and menopausal articles what do you think
To put it crudely I think best left alone and not poked.
Another small piece of good news she said my TSH has gone down from 4.7 or 8 I am not sure to 2.6.
I know this is still not ideal but surely a good thing that it has lowered some what,
and d a very kind nurse who was sorting out my blood test agreed to add on progesterone and oestrogen as this is not normal just a special request.
When I asked the gynecologist why oestrogen and progesterone was not included in testing as especially unopposed oestrogen has a lot to do with cancerous cysts she brushed me aside
And continued to convince me regarding a hysterectomy.


DR PEAT'S ANSWER


You’re right about biopsies tending to activate inert abnormal cells. Progesterone protects against the stress of surgery, and reduces the risk of metastasis if any cancer cells are present. Hypothyroidism/high TSH reliably causes hypercholestolemia and excessive clotting; doctors who don’t know that shouldn’t work in medicine. 5,000 IU of vitamin D is o.k. until you get a blood test for it. If you eat eggs regularly, and milk and cheese, you probably get enough vitamin A; when thyroid function is low, the need for vitamin A is low, since it isn’t being used at the normal rate.

These conversations are from December 2021

 

[mostlylurking]

But, um, are there?

I think the main "benefit" of biopsy is detection of "cancer." Or, maybe other diseases.

I, personally, don't think there is any "benefit" to detecting cancer in most situations, unless it is incredibly obvious and/or debilitating. Mostly, because the the so called "treatments" are still so barbaric, it's amazing (in some ways) that they are even still legal, or that anyone consents to them.

Still basically radiation, chemo, and surgery. I can see some surgery being potentially beneficial (but most not), while I tend to think the other two treatments do nothing but destroy the patient and shorten life.

How are two of the most potent carcinogens on the planet, radiation and chemo, the two "go to" treatments of cancer? It's as over the top ridiculous as a sledgehammer to the head being the main "treatment" for headaches.

Considering the same doctors (or brotherhood of doctors) can conjure up cause of death after hitting their "patients" with insane doses of both radiation and chemo, I would think something like 80% (or more) of "cancer deaths" are actually radiation and/or drug overdose/poisoning deaths. It's a neat (but devilish) trick to re-brand side effects of the "treatments" as symptoms of the "disease," thus justifying more "treatments," while only making the disease worse. Which, again, justifies more treatments, in a money and health sucking merry go round, till the patient presses on to the next realm.

So, I don't see a gateway to that morbid carnival as any sort of "benefit."

Well, yeah. I was thinking health wise.

I think you nailed it.

Biopsy seems to be of great benefit to the medical industrial complex's bottom line. It's the gateway procedure.

 

[Sherbert]

Ray Peat answer to section of my question about biopsy.

Thanks I know these things vary but did he say roughly how much p4 to reduce the risk of metastasis? any number, even a range would be helpful as a reference

 

[Elderflower j58]

@Sherbert
I'm sorry to say that was his complete answer I emailed him later in the year but never got a reply.
I'm assuming he was not very well at the time .
I'm not sure what p4 is, can you enlighten me ?

 

[Sherbert]

@Sherbert
I'm sorry to say that was his complete answer I emailed him later in the year but never got a reply.
I'm assuming he was not very well at the time .
I'm not sure what p4 is, can you enlighten me ?

Thank you. I used it as an abbreviation for progesterone.