Doctors do lie to their patients when it suits them

by Ronald
(Belgium)

When a doctor is convinced that malignant cancer doesn't go away by itself, does that make it okay for him to lie/falsify tests and/or withhold information - in order to stop a patient leaving the conventional treatment route?

April 2009 my girlfriend had a mammo taken. June 2009 (two months later!) they wanted her to come in for a ultrasound. Two suspicious spots were discovered, so she had to have a biopsy. This confirmed that she had malignant breast cancer. Her oncologist/surgeon told her she needed a mastectomy as soon as possible.

We found out about 'German New Medicine' (GNM) and about a month later we decided to not go ahead with surgery/chemo/radiation/drugs. The misinformation had already started when we asked to delay the operation (mastectomy). Our oncologist first told us he could only give us a few weeks to accept the necessity of having a mastectomy, but later he admitted that the internationally accepted 'waiting period' was six weeks... And there were other things he didn't discuss with us (like the sentinel node procedure) 'till we brought it up ourselves. Seemingly he/the hospital had his/their own protocol regarding breast cancer treatment.

One could put forward, this guy was an exception. Not so. Three months after we said goodbye to conventional treatment, we went back to the hospital where the mammo and ultrasound were taken, in order to get a follow up ultrasound (21th September 2009). As soon as the doctor/radiologist read about the fact that we had 'refused conventional treatment', his behaviour clearly started to show his bias towards people who go against conventional (medical) wisdom.

He took the ultrasound in a very hurried/superficial way and his report stated that the situation was 'quasi identical' compared to the situation three months earlier. Of course, this meant that the tumors hadn't become bigger - which would already have been a good result. But... When I took a look at the images at home (from the CD they gave us), and compared them with the ones of the CD taken on 19th June 2009, even I could see that they've used a 'different' method for measuring the tumors: on the first CD the tumors were measured properly, meaning, they've measured within the 'dark areas', but on the second one they've measured way from outside the dark areas. Also, the images looked very hazy. To me, all this indicated that the tumors were disappearing, but they didn't want us to know...

Convinced that they've 'tampered' with the second ultrasound, we've made an appointment at another radiological center (at another town) for three (!) days later. The note from our family doctor was very short this time. It only mentioned something like: 'follow up breast carcinoma'.

The doctor/radiologist was very friendly and took his time to perform the ultrasound (about 5-6 minutes). The same goes for the first ultrasound on 19th June 2009: slow, accurate movements.
He also talked to my girlfriend during this investigation and a few times he stated that he 'couldn't find anything wrong'. In the end he said that everything looked fine. Then, my girlfriend told him about the two previous ultrasounds and the positive biopsy. He insisted to have a look at them and afterwards he wanted to repeat his investigation (now knowing where to look). This time he examined her very thoroughly, but in the end his report stated that: "The previous ultrasound images were looked at first. After thoroughly investigation, these images no longer were present ... In light of the previous ultrasounds and the positive biopsy, in my opinion a MRI-examination would be appropriate."

That same day, he called our family doctor's practice and said that he was convinced that we had nothing to worry about and that he stood firmly behind his findings.

Today (five months later), we went back for a follow up, but this time our doctor put copies of all the medical documents on his computer in an envelope and we handed it over to this same doctor/radiologist. Now, it was a totally different story: no more friendliness, no more taking time for a thoroughly investignation, no more conversation. He took a rather long look at the papers we gave him, skimmed over my girlfriends breasts in a hurry and then claimed: "there's still something there, but you already knew this..."

Later, when I called him from our home and confronted him with the ambiguity in his findings he denied having ever called our family doctor and said that ultrasounds were not very reliable at best... During this call he told me that malignant cancer doesn't just disappear and that we had to get conventional treatment?

By the way, I've looked at the ultrasound images he took this time. They were even worse than the ones taken on 21th September 2009 (which was the reason we went to his office on 24th September 2009): very blurry images, not much distinction between light grey and dark grey areas and measurements taken with starting points way outside the dark areas.

A look at the images from 24th September 2009 convinced me that this isn't just a coincidence: doctors will tamper with examinations if it suits them! If this is done out of greed or because it's 'in the patient's best interest' (looking at it from their point of view) I'll leave in the middle.

It sure must be tempting when you?ve got such power?


Here's the report from the doctor/radiologist who told my girlfriend: "there's still something there, but you already knew this."

It's my translation from Dutch into English, of the letter this radiologist sent to the office of our family doctor(s):

Esteemed colleague,

Regarding:

Clinical data or inquiry:
- Known breast carcinoma for which, explicitly by patient's demand, a conservative conduct has been exerted. Evolution?


Ultrasound of both breasts.
Patient did not wish to have the prescribed mammography. At 11 hours, in the right breast, there's now clearly a tumoral image, capriciously lined, with a discrete acoustic shadow behind it. This probably malignant neoformation has a radius of 10 mm. The other two known malignant tumors could not clearly be found again by means of the ultrasound. One could however presume a small cyst in the right breast. In the left breast a clear tumoral process has not been demonstrated. No pathological lymph nodes.


What to make of this? At first sight this looks pretty frightening. However, when you put this letter (report) into perspective, it's a different matter. This doctor told my girlfriend that there still was something in her right breast, of which, to his knowledge, she was already aware. Strange, considering the fact that he assured us five months ago that he was very confident the two known tumors were gone:

"By conducting a thoroughly ultrasound examination, this ultrasound image could not be found again."

This, he not only told us, he also wrote it in his report (which he sent to our family doctor's office) and even phoned our family doctor personally the same day, to have him tell us that, in his opinion, we could rest assured.

When I called this doctor/radiologist and mentioned this phone call, he bluntly denied that this conversation ever had taken place. Of course, I've checked with our family doctor and he remembers it all too well.

I hope you catch my drift...

By reading his report closely, it's obvious that he's trying to make everything sound as negatively as possible: "The other two known malignant tumors could not clearly be found again by means of the ultrasound" - silently implying that they must still be there.

And even: "One could, however, presume a small cyst in the right breast."

How silly can you get...

So now he talks about a 'neoformation' at 11 hours, in the right breast, measuring 10 mm. That's the same location and measurement (well, 11 mm x 8.3 mm, to be exact) of one of the 'two known malignant tumors' discovered with the first ultrasound (19th June 2009 - found again 21th September and then, three days later, on 24th September 2009 completely gone after a 'thoroughly ultrasound examination' (which, to be exact, was performed twice in a row, because, after the first go, we've shown him the images of the older ultrasounds - one taken three months, the other three days earlier).

Of course, by presenting this 'tumor' as being a 'new' one, he's practically forcing us to (again) go into the hospital for further tests (core biopsy)... If it's 'just' the old tumor making it's appearance again, then this would mean that it's even gotten smaller in size, which is not bad at all, considering it's been nearly 11 months since the mammography was taken... But, as I've said before, I've looked at these ultrasound images and I'm sure that if this doctor/radiologist had seen this 'neoformation' for the first time, he wouldn't have found it very alarming - the same way he didn't find the ultrasound of his colleagues (from 19th September 2009) alarming either.

By the way, where did the second tumor go to? (it was right beside this one, at 13 hours). Should we wait three days and go get another ultrasound?

Seriously, the whole deal looks very suspicious to us and we will wait a while before thinking about a possible follow up. This time, we'll look for a more open minded doctor (surely they must exist) and have him write a description for another ultrasound, without it mentioning anything more than: "Ultrasound of both breasts".