In addition to surveying women, the scientists from Stanford also surveyed physicians as well. And what the clinicians revealed is even more shocking.
Lead author Allison Kurian, MD, associate professor of medicine and of health research and policy at Stanford, stated, "Clinical practice guidelines state that variants of uncertain significance should not be considered to confer high cancer risk, and that patients with these variants should be counseled similarly to a patient whose genetic test is normal."
"However, many of the physicians surveyed in our study stated that they manage these patients in the same way as they do patients with mutations known to increase a woman's risk," she continued. So, these doctors should be aware of the differences in treatment protocols for different findings. Women with genetic variants of uncertain significance, or VUS, are to be treated as if they have normal genetic test results -- and yet, many doctors are treating them as if they have a cancer-causing gene, and frightening them into getting a procedure to remove not one but two organs!
This finding implies that it is not just a simple misunderstanding, as the researchers at Stanford have implied; these doctors have admitted to treating patients who do not have a cancer-causing gene as if they do. In effect, they are falsely describing the test results to their patients, and leading them to believe that a bilateral mastectomy -- or double mastectomy -- is necessary to prevent breast cancer when it most likely is not. About a quarter of the women in the study had the surgery before even getting the genetic testing done! What kind of doctor would agree to that?
As Dr. Kurian notes, there is a substantial lack of understanding when it comes to the results of genetic testing, both among doctors and patients. This is why it is imperative that women seek out qualified genetic counselors before making major decisions like having both breasts amputated; a surgeon alone cannot be trusted with this endeavor, especially since they will profit from your surgery, as Mike Adams points out.
Stanford University reports that these "uncertainties" in understanding genetic testing could have dire effects for women on the receiving end of treatment; surgeons with less experience may be more prone to suggest extreme and aggressive forms of treatment, like removing both breasts. Inexperienced surgeons may also "cause women to opt for what they may feel is the safest option to manage their cancer."
Except for the fact that in the instance of VUS, they are to be treated as if they don't have cancer-causing genes, right? For all intents and purposes, patients with VUS do not have cancer, according to the clinical guidelines described by Dr. Kurian. The "safest option" here would really be to seek a second opinion, preferably from a reputable genetic counselor and emphatically not from a gung-ho surgeon.
There are few words more loaded in our society than "cancer," and if you want to get someone into treatment, there is often little more needed than that word alone. It is truly sad that so many women have been harmed by this type of "medical violence," as Mike Adams calls it. And truly, what else could you call the practice of coercing women into major surgery under false pretenses? (RELATED: Learn more about the cancer industry at CancerScams.news)