Biopsies Are Risky Why Do Them?

Doctors routinely recommend biopsies to diagnose cancer. PET and CT scans usually follow if a biopsy shows a positive result. Biopsies can harm the patient. Biopsies do occasionally provoke metastasis. All cells are surrounded by interstitial fluid. This fluid drains into the lymph system through lymph channels, to the upper left chest, where the major lymphatic channel drains directly into a blood vessel.

When a scalpel or needle invades tissue with cancer cells, there will be some bleeding, spilling cancer cells into the blood vessels or the lymph system via the interstitial fluid.  Once a few of the billions of cancer cells break away and enter the bloodstream, they travel to distant organs and start to grow. This process is called ‘seeding’.

In a 2014 study from Dalhousie University in Canada, researchers found that core needle biopsies (which use an intimidatingly thick needle to remove tissue samples) can increase the chances of breast cancer metastases in mice because the procedure reduces the immune response in the tumor area. Also in 2014, researchers from Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital in India evaluated found that the risk of spreading cancer depends on a couple factors. First, seeding is more likely in some very specific types of cancers, and second, the risk of seeding depends on the type of biopsy procedure being performed.

While needle aspirations are safer than surgical biopsy, there are still dangers. Are biopsies worth the risk? Your doctor certainly will think they are since everything about modern oncology is risky and dangerous but they will not tell you that. There are however, many types of biopsies some riskier that others. 

What we expect to hear from mainstream medicine: “Despite the minimal risks and ongoing studies about cancer seeding during biopsy, collecting tissue samples has been one of the most useful tools in battling cancer. These samples give medical teams a lot of information that helps tailor treatments to give patients the best chance of recovery. “You glean from a biopsy the type of tumor it is, whether it is malignant or benign, and how aggressive it is,” said Dr. Jonathan Epstein, Professor of Pathology, Urology and Oncology and Director of Surgical Pathology at Johns Hopkins Hospital. “You can also do special studies sometimes for certain markers, which can help determine therapy and which types of tumors would respond to different types of therapy.”

Given how many people die from cancer each year it seems that oncologists are exaggerating both the usefulness and safety of biopsies and just about everything else they do. Dr. Vincent Gammill, Center for the Study of Natural Oncology in Solana Beach, California, presented a case of a woman who had successfully treated her breast cancer naturally since 1994. Last year, her conventional oncologist convinced her that she was a fool to refuse a needle biopsy. She now has new tumors at each of the puncture sites. “I rarely see distant metastasis until after a biopsy – and then it grows rapidly everywhere, especially in the bones,” Gammill said.

In 2011, researchers for Mayo Clinic College of Medicine reported that transperitoneal biopsy of cancer of the bile duct is associated with a higher rate of peritoneal metastasis and they recommend the procedure not be performed if a curative method exists.

Most hospitals and oncologists require biopsies. One small private clinic in Baja, Mexico, like most alternative centers that treat cancer do not. “Many patients come to us because they don’t want to have a biopsy. Especially breast and prostate patients. We respect their wishes, and offer tumor marker testing, color Doppler sonograms, ultrasounds and whole body thermography instead,” says Dr. Antonio Jimenez of Hope4Cancer Institute.

Dr. Thomas Seyfried warns against doing biopsies because of its dangers. The problem is that when you stab into the cancer microenvironment to remove a part of the tissue, it creates a wound in that microenvironment that in turn elicits the invasion by macrophages and other immune cells.

If you already have an acidic microenvironment, you run the risk of causing a fusion hybridization event in that microenvironment between your macrophages and cancer stem cells. This could turn a potentially benign situation into a malignant one, and if the tumor is malignant, stabbing into it could make a bad situation worse.

The question is, what is the value of doing a biopsy in the first place? We take biopsies of breast tissue to get a genomic readout of the different kinds of mutations that might be in the cells. Now, if cancer is not a genetic disease and the mutations are largely irrelevant, then it makes no sense to do that in the first place. If the tumor is benign, why would you want to stab it? If the tumor is malignant, why would you ever want to stab it? I came to this view by reading so many articles in the literature based on brain cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, liver cancer showing how needle biopsies have led to the dissemination of these tumor cells, putting these people at risk for metastatic cancer and death, Seyfried says.

“In metabolic therapy, you would not touch the tumor; you would not disturb the microenvironment. By leaving it alone, you allow the tumor to shrink and go away. When you start to look at this as a biological problem, many of the things that we do in cancer make no sense. We have, in brain cancer, people say, ‘You have a very low-grade tumor. Let’s go in and get it out.’ What happens is you go in and get it out, and then the following year it turns into a glioblastoma.How did that happen? Well, you disturbed the microenvironment. You allowed these cells that are marginally aggressive to become highly aggressive. Then you lead to the demise of the patient, Seyfried says.

Conclusion

If one is at the stage where one seriously feels they might have cancer and are at the point they want confirmation, one way or another, it might make sense to get a biopsy if one is considering the nuclear option of chemo and radiation therapy. If one is going to surrender to a series of dangerous tests and treatments, what’s the problem with one more risk? So let the oncologists play out their full game. 

But if one does not see themself going that harsh dangerous route, and would choose natural therapies, it makes more sense to just assume the worst and start treating through safe non risk protocols. If one is at that place of concern, one can look at other markers of cancer, for which there are many tests, and look at the many causes, and be choosing treatments that address those causes.

RGCC Onconomics Plus Test
MammaPrint Test
MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
Ultrasound
Thermography
The Navarro Urine Test
ONCOBlot Test
American Metabolic Laboratories CA Profile Test
PSA Test

Modern oncology is not the success they would like us to believe it is. Now that we find that cancer has overtaken heart disease as the leading cause of death in wealthy countries, we do have reason to doubt what they say and what they do.

In rich countries where patients and insurance companies throw billions at cancer treatment, and its diagnosis, cancer now kills twice as many people as heart disease. Something is seriously wrong with how oncologists view cancer, its causes and its treatments. They posture about how their principle treatments are the only way without admitting that they are miserable failures at keeping people alive for very long.

Almost everything oncologists do is dangerous, especially the radiation and chemical drugs they use in chemotherapy. Biopsies are actually more necessary for the oncologist than the patient. Its the oncologist who needs you to take a biopsy because they are part of their guidance system for treatment.

Despite everything oncologists do massive amounts of people die from cancer every day. Nothing they say changes that fact. And when you add the costs, to both patients, insurance companies and governments, who are already bankrupt or almost so, modern oncology really does not make much sense. Whats the point when few people can afford treatment?

When we consider the costs of Immuno-Oncology done the pharmaceutical way, and the fact that only the richest people in the world can afford it, we see modern medicine is barking up the wrong tree. It is not serving humanity. I suggest one entertain a more natural way of doing Immuno-Oncology.

Even oncologists admit Immuno-Oncology is better than Chemo and radiation, which work to destroy rather than build a strong immune system, which does have the power to take down cancer.