Detecting cancer: can you trust all the tests?

by Jon Rappoport

May 9, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Obviously, a false diagnosis of cancer would be a disaster.

I’m not talking about all tests for cancer. I’ve only looked into two. This is what I’ve discovered.

There is a blood test, which looks for a bio-marker labeled CA125. There are doctors who will tell you that a highly positive result indicates a high probability of cancer.

Imagine being a patient on the receiving end of that news.

But wait. If you go to other sources—and no, I’m not talking about alternative practitioners, I’m talking about the mainstream—you’ll get a distinctly different view.

How about a quite prestigious organization—the Mayo Clinic?

“A CA 125 test measures the amount of the protein CA 125 (cancer antigen 125) in your blood.”

“A CA 125 test may be used to monitor certain cancers during and after treatment. In some cases, a CA 125 test may be used to look for early signs of ovarian cancer in people with a very high risk of the disease.”

“A CA 125 test isn’t accurate enough to use for ovarian cancer screening in general because many noncancerous conditions can increase the CA 125 level.”

“Many different conditions can cause an increase in CA 125, including normal conditions, such as menstruation, and noncancerous conditions, such as uterine fibroids. Certain cancers may also cause an increased level of CA 125, including ovarian, endometrial, peritoneal and fallopian tube cancers.”

“Your doctor may recommend a CA 125 test for several reasons: But such monitoring hasn’t been shown to improve the outcome for those with ovarian cancer, and it might lead to additional and unnecessary rounds of chemotherapy or other treatments.”

“…some people with ovarian cancer may not have an increased CA 125 level. And no evidence shows that screening with CA 125 decreases the chance of dying of ovarian cancer. An elevated level of CA 125 could prompt your doctor to put you through unnecessary and possibly harmful tests.”

“A number of normal and noncancerous conditions can cause an elevated CA 125 level, including:
• Endometriosis
• Liver disease
• Menstruation
• Pelvic inflammatory disease
• Pregnancy
• Uterine fibroids”

“None of the major professional organizations recommend using the CA125 as a screening test for those with an average risk of ovarian cancer.”

Is that clear enough? I hope so.

Let’s move on to another test for cancer. It’s a version of a PET scan.

From, About PET Scans: “A PET scan uses a small amount of a radioactive drug, or tracer, to show differences between healthy tissue and diseased tissue. The most commonly used tracer is called FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose), so the test is sometimes called an FDG-PET scan. Before the PET scan, a small amount of FDG is injected into the patient…”

The theory goes this way: cancer cells have an affinity for FDG and “grab on to” it. Thus, these cancer cells “light up” on the PET scan and can easily be seen. Tumors and metastases can be observed.

Yes, but…

Introduction to PET/CT Imaging: “Cancer cells are not always the only ‘PET avid cells’ (or cells that take up the FDG) in the body. It is important to remember that a PET scan is not able to distinguish metabolic activity due to tumor from activity due to non cancerous processes, such as inflammation or infection.”

PET scan findings can be false positive: “In cancer cells, there is an overproduction of glucose transporters and, as a result, increased FDG uptake. However, not all PET-positive lesions are cancer, and in many instances, PET findings can be false positive. … Inflammatory cells also have increased metabolic rates and, as a result, are FDG avid.”

“Many of us have had patients or know of patients who were treated by the medical oncologist for stage IV cancer only to find out what was assumed to be a metastatic lesion was benign on pathology. Other patients have undergone multiple biopsies of supposed metastatic mesenteric lymph nodes that subsequently turned out to be fat necrosis or a granulomatous reaction. FDG-positive lesions often mean cancer, but not always. A variety of lesions have increased FDG radiotracer [the “lighting up” phenomenon] including infection, inflammation, autoimmune processes, sarcoidosis, and benign tumors. If such conditions are not identified accurately and in a timely manner, misdiagnosis can lead to inadequate therapies.”

Causes and imaging features of false positives and false negatives on 18F-PET/CT in oncologic imaging: Causes and imaging features of false positives and false negatives on 18F-PET/CT in oncologic imaging“Glucose however acts as a basic energy substrate for many tissues, and so 18F-FDG activity can be seen both physiologically and in benign conditions. In addition, not all tumors take up FDG [3–5]. The challenge for the interpreting physician is to recognize these entities and avoid the many pitfalls associated with 18F-FDG PET-CT imaging.”

The question is, after a patient is told he has received a positive PET scan, indicating cancer, will the physician spell out all the factors that could have made the test read FALSELY POSITIVE? Will an intelligent and honest and informed conversation take place, or will the doctor shove the test results at the patient and declare: “You have cancer.”

And if that cancer diagnosis is given, will the patient be in a position to voice questions through prior knowledge, and undertake a reasonable dialogue with his doctor?

How do doctors normally hand down test findings? In a balanced way, or from on high, with all the presumed authority of unchallengeable experts?

Are there doctors who don’t even know these two diagnostic tests are rife with falsely positive readings? Yes, there are. And if they deliver papal edicts based on their ignorance, they can cause great harm.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

17 comments on “Detecting cancer: can you trust all the tests?

  1. chefjemichel says:

    Bullseye, Jon! The questions that you have raised here deserve to be duplicated by every individual seeking diagnostic input from a doctor. I’ll be reposting this at CureZone.

  2. NaturalWoman says:

    Then there is the connection between the mind and illness called the placebo affect. If someone is given a diagnosis of death, it can be self-fulfilling so the same can be true of a false cancer diagnosis. I remember learning about this many years ago in college when a professor detailed how a witch doctor could condemn a person to death and the otherwise healthy person would die if they believed in the witchdoctor’s power.

    If the mainstream doesn’t know what is wrong or how to benefit the patient, rather than admitting it, they will say “It’s all in your head,” thus blaming the victim when they do not know what is wrong to preserve their power. Ironically, they do not recognize that this can be literally true and do not do anything to cultivate the politive application of this concept to make a person well.

  3. trishwriter says:

    Thank you so much, Jon! I have heard of the CA 125 test and from the little I’d read of it, assumed it provided a clear diagnosis, i.e., I had bought the hype.

    This situation reminds me of a story I heard the other day, of a woman who was given a test (not sure what test it was) and told that very day that the results of the test indicated she could not have children. Fortunately, she and her husband disregarded those test results and conceived a child within several months. Another woman wrote a newspaper essay in which she said she had just found out that morning that she would never have children. Her column was about coming to terms with her diagnosis. Until I heard the previous story, I had wondered how the newspaper writer received a diagnosis of infertility–did the doctors suddenly discover that she didn’t have a uterus? After hearing the story I previously mentioned, however, I’m guessing the newspaper essayist took a test similar to the one that the other woman took, and that she also bought the hype. It takes some people years to have a baby, after trying many different things to help them conceive. What tests are some doctors giving that can, within one day, deem a woman infertile?

  4. sundancer55 says:

    On the one hand . . . yeah but then again on the OTHER hand . . .

    Wow. Talk about people who glow in the dark …………………………………………………..

    FALSE POSITIVES – I’ve personally known at least four people who’ve been treated for cancers they weren’t sure they actually had. My Dad happened to be one of the ones who was misdiagnosed but he died of something else (a botched surgery for the SUPPOSED CANCER) before we were able to prove the doctor was wrong. Those doctors literally – – LITERALLY – – hid and/or destroyed the evidence.


    ** What about people who THINK they have cancer and go for treatment (whether mainstream or alternative) and they “get well” – – – what kind of “False Positive” does THAT lead to? OMG. How many people are out there schlepping their cause for a cancer that didn’t even exist???

    I don’t even wanna think about it.

  5. karunaveg says:

    Excellent – thanks for shining light through the medical darkness!

  6. the postman says:

    In 1904, cancer caused just 4% of deaths in the U.S. By around 1995 or so mortality due to cancer had risen six-fold to 24%. Think about that for a moment… If cancer had a beginning then certainly it must have an end as well, right? More important, if we know cancer’s beginning in time and so too history tells us everything that has changed in our lives since that time, (especially regarding our diets), shouldn’t even a modestly educated high school student be capable of determining the cause of cancer? And yet, all that the cancer industry can manage after more than a century is address the symptoms of cancer by way of cutting, irradiating and poisoning.

    Should we be at all surprised by this lacklustre performance on their part? In fact, we shouldn’t! Anyone who researches the cancer establishment will quickly learn that it evolved out of the American eugenics (Malthusian) movement (which most Americans are unaware even existed). IMO, an ever-growing part of the rise in cancer rates is due to the fact that more and more, cancer is being mis-diagnosed, and this is being done intentionally in order to help eliminate what the Malthusian elite consider to be an excess of us “useless bread eaters” (this overall conspiracy is the focus of my historical research). Cancer treatment obviously adheres to an “iatrogenic model” in which the treatment contributes to (or, in many cases causes completely) a person’s death. This model works because friends and relatives wouldn’t normally question that someone on chemotherapy would die from “cancer”. Same thing with AIDS. If someone whose lifestyle is such that you’d believe them if they told you they had AIDS, would you be at all surprised later to find that they died of it? But what if they didn’t die of AIDS and instead, they died of the treatment itself?

    This model is analogous to the classic “feedback loop” known to electronics engineers–an element of the “solution” itself contributes to the “problem”. Thus, the more problem realized, the more solution is applied… BTW, this theory regarding AIDS in particular is substantiated somewhat in the documentary, “HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud?”. Look for it on line. Two other examples of this medical deception involve mental health and diabetes. Again, who’d be surprised that someone with mental problems might kill themselves, or others due to “their mental illness” (in fact, a lot of people seem aware that the drugs are a contributing factor)? But diabetes treatment takes the cake. The first thing a doctor treating someone for diabetes does is to put them on a low calorie diet where sugar is replaced by artificial sweeteners, and quite often the unsuspecting patient/victim chooses aspartame. It’s becoming more widely known that the use of aspartame contributes to weight gain as well as blindness. That’s right, blindness! Now, who hasn’t heard that a serious symptom of diabetes is… blindness? Again who would question that someone developed diabetes who was already working (and apparently failing) to control their weight? Yep, it’s the same “feedback loop” as noted earlier except that now, the patient assumes more responsibility for furthering his/her own illness. Sadly, the diabetes patient could have avoided becoming overweight in the first place had they simply eaten like their grandparents or great grandparents–that is, chosen real food over highly processed foods with their hydrogenated fats (please read Udo Erasmus’ “Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill” for more details).

    Be forewarned folks! Much of our medical system is set up to cause, not cure illness! — the postman

  7. Abe says:

    “Let thy food be thy medicine and thy medicine be thy food?”

  8. June Gardner says:

    Mine was DELIBERATE INTENT, not a mistake.. Deliberate misdiagnosis keeps the money rolling in for snakes in white coats and the corrupt medical cartel..

  9. Jon

    Emphatically NO.

    Currently “health” diagnoses symptoms. No one [formally] knows the cause of cancers (which mysteriously historically follows the development of the automobile industry – sic) and therefore many and various triggers (such as vaccines) are convenient to blame.

    I realise your point in writing this article is adrift of mine – i.e. can “we” trust healthcare “professionals”? But I am expanding your reasoning. If health doesn’t know the REAL causes, all diagnoses are “false positives” regardless of merit.

    My recent article discusses another associated issue (given the true cause of cancer can only be initially detected in the quantum layer):

    “….The Pharisees ignore and deny the essence of God. All manners of evidence to the effect can be sought in our material sciences, nominal religious dogmas and the endless commercial-political conspiracy designated to prepare slaves. Ri is the glue that binds existence, but spirituality also inhibits the Pharisee’s cause. Nevertheless, comprehension of the censored astral is critically important if the Atlantis tamarian concept is to be appreciated. There is no representation for spiritual glue in the word “tamaras” and for good reason. On face value tamaras is the product of manipulators that desire to use the shell (Ra) as their icon for control. It goes without saying that the tamaras must fashionably double as that which is colloquially known as the “False [light] Matrix”. Albeit the former signifies philosophic intent and the latter refers to proto-physical infrastructures, they are the same. In relation to the tamarian however, all concepts leverage off the same basic identify framework in different ways.

    Fortunate for us Atlantis expressions “evolve” and we can clearly see tamaras and tamarian have shared components. Therefore once we are able to decode all syllables as individual standalone words, we will be in a stronger position to impress plausible grouped meanings that contextually rely on all parts. This quest needs some vital background before we embark. For instance, our contemporary sciences’ impotence regarding cosmic matters will reflect poorly on findings (i.e. findings will likely contradict or defy mainstream opinion). Scientists’ errors are so widespread that everything particularly very small or very big is disaffected. The removal of Stephen Hawkins will change nothing. In my protest, I see no purpose in attempting to benchmark findings under error to be “politically correct”, so I rightly ignore whimsical physicists. Atoms, I reveal in The Beauty of Existence Decoded, are universal catalysers. In that capacity, all the components of dimensional frequency configurations are simultaneously generated within “time windows”. No quantum theory has come close to unravelling the “mystery” behind the truth beyond string and superstring “anticipations”….

    ….When Moses wrote the “Ten Commandments” he aimed to jump start religious standards in his favour. Whereas, at first glance, sentiment seems noble enough, upon stricter analysis, every commandment promotes notorious double standards that neither reflect whimsical human morality well nor promote divine being. Partnered with the Mosaic scourge, Aristotle’s control measures are still alive and well but buried so deep in cultural Roman Catholicism, they are almost unrecognisable now. Does not today’s International (“globalism”) Standards Organisation (ISO) certification attempt to impose arbitrary universal commerce measures that “transcend” (conflict with) staffing competence? Some would say that religions effectively plunder God’s divinity. Terms of surrender serve up grotesque contortions of the image of true faith….”


  10. JKick says:

    Have You Ever Heard Of The 1939 Cancer Act in the UK?

    I hadn’t until recently.

    Cancer Act 1939
    1939 CHAPTER 13 2 and 3 Geo 6

    An Act to make further provision for the treatment of cancer, to authorise the Minister of Health to lend money to the National Radium Trust, to prohibit certain advertisements relating to cancer, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

    [29th March 1939]

    4 Prohibition of certain advertisements.

    (1)No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—

    (a)containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof; or

    (b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3

    (2)If any person contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F4fifty pounds][F4level 3 on the standard scale], and, in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F4one hundred pounds][F4level 3 on the standard scale] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.

    Touted as a protection for the people against “charlatans and quacks,” the law made it illegal to promote, write about, or even speak about cancer therapies other than radiation.

    On the other hand it could easily be argued it was a protection for an expensive industry that the government had given loans to, which would look not to clever if emerging alternative therapies to radiation quickly gained renown and doomed the radiation industry to failure.

  11. jacobite2015 says:

    Great post & fascinating info.

    One thing I can’t understand is why oncologists bombard their patients with PET scans, which produces a significant amount of ionizing radiation (~25 mSv). So, it’s bad enough that cancer patients will suffer iatrogenic damage from the chemo – and now they’re hit with high-radiation PET scans during & post-treatment.

    In fact, the whole medical imaging spectrum can be dangerous. CT scans aren’t much better. Only MRIs (without contrast) are safe and I try to push for an MRI over a CT scan at all times. But the “buzzword” these days are “CT scans,” and so many patients brag about how many CT scans they’ve had and how their doctor is looking out for them. Such stupidity. But radiologists are partly to blame too.They know very well how dangerous some of these scans are but fail to inform their patients and suggest safer alternatives such as MRIs & Ultrasounds. But hey – it’s the medical cartel…imagine that. Lol.

  12. joel says:

    I had cancer 2 years ago and I have fully recovered. What I learned is that cancer is poorly defined. I supposedly had this affliction, but no one could tell me what it was. No good definition then I had to define it myself, and I was very motivated!
    Do you know what I learned?
    Just replace the mystery word cancer with….lymphatic stagnation.
    So the entirety of western medicine is on this boondoggle wild goose chase for a bad microbe or a virus or ….you name it. We want some outside thingy, entity, to blame. Keep the fake research going till your balls or ovaries turn blue if you like….
    But that is not itttttttttttttttttttt!
    Restore lymphatic flow again and all the fake diseases go away.
    Cancer is systemic, a buildup of acidic wastes in the body and the body makes a tumor, or shuts down an organ, or causes burning and pain…a million symptoms for one disease….
    stagnant lymph
    aloha and may we all learn the truths that will set us free
    Look up Dr. Morse and Dr. Sebi to hear two beings say the same thing in different ways

    • jacobite2015 says:

      Interesting information. Curious: What kind kind of cancer dx and what stage was it? You had alternative treatment over conventional? If alternative, what did you utilize? Dietary changes? Nutritional supplements?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *