The Great Cancer Lie: It Is Preventable and Beatable by Doctor Blaylock (excerpt from his October 2008 newsletter)
In the 1960s, the government declared war on cancer. As is the case with most government programs, the answer was to throw a lot of taxpayer money at the problem.
Yet, after 40 years and tens of billions of dollars spent in the “war” on cancer, death rates from the most common cancers haven’t budged.
In fact, people whose cancers already have spread to other parts of the body (the term is “metastasized”) die in numbers just as high as 50 years ago, and the truth is, unfortunately, most cancers do spread by the time they are diagnosed.
Until recently, cancer researchers had found few answers as to the origin of cancer and why it was so hard to prevent and cure. In the shadows of this orthodoxy, a number of brilliant men and women were looking at cancer in a different way and making some real headway, not only in preventing it, but in treating some of the most advanced cases.
Over the past 20 years, this once-shunned knowledge has slowly become more and more mainstream as scientists began to uncover an intimate relationship between cancer prevention and treatment, diet, and the use of special nutraceutical supplements.
Today, medical and research journals that deal with cancer are filled with studies confirming what these “alternative” thinkers have been saying all along: Inflammation is the key to understanding cancer.
There is growing evidence among scientists that cancers arise as the result of chronic, low-grade inflammation that exists over decades. This explains the link between various illnesses and cancers.
Inflammation Is Key to Cancer Growth Bacterial infections, if prolonged, also can induce cancer. In some regions, parasitic infections are a common cause of cancer. Certain viruses also cause cancer. Note that these don't directly cause cancer: rather, they induce chronic inflammation which leads to cancer. Block the inflammation, and cancer rates fall precipitously, even if the virus is not cured.
How Cancer Does Its Ugly Work Localized cancers, ones that do not spread to other parts of the body, rarely kill. Cancer kills because of metastasis, the spread of cancer throughout other parts of the body, which occurs in nine out of 10 cases. In fact, at the time of diagnosis, 76 percent of lung cancers, 55 percent of colorectal cancers and 37 percent of breast cancers have already spread. As a neurosurgeon, I was often the first person to diagnose a cancer because so many spread to the nervous system first.
The irony is that a number of chemotherapy agents actually increase inflammation and generate free radicals. Cancer researchers admit that, based on these new discoveries, conventional cancer treatments have little chance of success against both the most common cancers and the most advanced cancers.
Many inflammatory chemicals act as growth factors — they actually “fertilize” the cancer. For example, men with prostate cancer who have higher levels of inflammatory chemicals have a poorer prognosis than those with lower levels.
This is also true with breast, colon, lung, and ovarian cancers.
Researchers have shown that injecting inflammatory substances, such as carrageenan (a common food thickener), near a tumor will cause it to grow very rapidly and invade surrounding tissues, that is, metastasize. Even very diluted concentrations of carrageenan can do this. Inflammation also explains the high rate of cancer in diabetics, since they have a progressive increase in inflammation over time, especially if their diabetes is poorly controlled.
Diabetic cancer patients also have a much poorer prognosis than non-diabetic patients.
A review of 97 studies demonstrated that the higher the intake of omega-6 oils, the more likely cancers were to quickly grow and spread. They also found that obese women who ate the most omega-6 oils (found in soybean, sunflower, corn, and safflower oils) had the worst prognosis from their breast cancer and had more advanced cancers at the time of diagnosis.
It is known that diets high in omega-6 oils increase estradiol production of fat cells and this can drive estrogen-sensitive cancer cells. Omega-6 oils are also major generators of inflammation in the body.
Similarly, a study of 217 men found that those on high omega-6 diets (the typical Western diet) had more prostate cancers and their cancers were more advanced than in those men whose diets were lower in omega-6 oils.
animal studies found that certain nutrients could make tumors grow faster and make them more likely to metastasize. These nutrients included processed sugars and omega-6 oils. In fact, in some animals with transplanted human tumors, the tumors do not metastasize unless the animals are fed corn oil, an omega-6 oil.
The same was found with cancer-causing chemicals. Injecting rats with cancer-causing chemicals of low potency normally produces only a few tumors. Add corn oil to their diet and the rats develop huge numbers of cancers.
When tumors spread all over the body, they form a huge volume of energy-consuming tissue (called tumor volume). Remember, cancer can use only one fuel — sugar. This is why feeding cancer patients other foods do not cause the tumors to grow faster.
I checked the diets being recommended by a number of cancer centers. To my astonishment, I found that they were recommending that their cancer patients eat doughnuts, cakes, pies, cheesecake, breads and a number of other sources of refined sugar. I remember in one instance, a cancer patient told me she was told her to eat anything she wanted . . . and that the important thing was not to lose weight. Incredible!
Glutamate, a Powerful Stimulant for Cancer Growth In 1994, I wrote a book entitled “Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills,” on the harmful effects glutamate and aspartame additives cause to the brain. (For more information, go to my Web site www.russellblaylockmd.com.) Since then, scientists have discovered that glutamate receptors, the site where glutamate interacts with the cell, are found on most tissues in the body. A great number of these receptors are found with some cancers.
Of major concern was the discovery that stimulating these receptors can make many common cancers grow much faster, become highly invasive, and much more deadly. This was first discovered with brain cancers (glioblastoma multiforme).
When these tumors secreted a lot of glutamate, they grew 14 times faster than those that didn’t. Adding glutamate to the tumors made them suddenly invade the surrounding brain. We now know that breast, prostate, melanoma, colorectal, lung, ovarian, rhabdomyosarcoma, pancreatic, and head and neck cancers all have glutamate receptors. Stimulating these receptors causes tumors to grow and invade surrounding tissue. A study of squamous carcinoma of the head and neck found that patients who had tumors with abundant glutamate receptors had the largest tumors, the fastest-growing tumors, and the poorest prognosis.
Melanomas are also very sensitive to glutamate. These cancerous tumors secrete high levels of glutamate, and adding glutamate makes them metastasize. Interestingly, blocking the melanoma’s glutamate receptors slowed their growth and prevented metastasis.
Combining glutamate receptor-blocking drugs with conventional chemotherapy dramatically improved the chemotherapy’s effectiveness. This is true of many types of cancer.
The presence of certain types of glutamate receptors can even make some tumors, such as colon cancer, resistant to treatment. Blocking the glutamate receptors, however, can suddenly make the resistant cancer sensitive to chemotherapy.
The irony here is that glutamate additives are common in our foods. Processed foods frequently have several forms of glutamate additives added in high concentrations. Why? They are only used because they enhance the taste of foods.
No one is telling cancer patients that these additives enhance the growth of their cancers, interfere with conventional treatments, and stimulate tumor invasion and metastasis, which is why you need to avoid eating in restaurants or eating processed foods (even infrequently): • MSG • Hydrolyzed proteins • Soy proteins • Soy isolates • Natural flavoring • Autolyzed yeast • Caseinate • Stock • Broth
In fact, these types of additives can make their cancers incurable.
Glutamate additives are known to trigger inflammation and activate all of the inflammatory signals in a number of tissues.
Studies confirm that a few doses of MSG can increase free radical generation and inflammation that can last decades, especially if given early in life to infants and toddlers. Predicting Metastasis
Inflammation greatly increases the activity of this enzyme, and reducing inflammation reduces tyrosine kinase activity and hence reduces the spread of cancer.
A number of natural products can suppress this cancer enzyme, including quercetin, luteolin, apigenin, curcumin and kaempferol. All are found in vegetables, and many can be purchased as supplement extracts.
The enzyme ornithine decarboxylase is also related to cancer growth. It increases in activity more than 100 times in cancerous tumors. MSG dramatically increases the action of this enzyme and may play a role in cancer promotion. Epigallocatechin gallate, or EGCG (white tea extract), apigenin (celery), retinoids, curcumin (turmeric), and isothiocyanates (broccoli) inhibit this enzyme.
How can you reduce angiogenesis (the process of growing new blood vessels from existing blood vessels), which cancer uses to grow? Omega-3 oils, especially the DHA component of fish oils, reduce angiogenesis.
The plant flavonoids luteolin and apigenin, which are found in high concentrations in artichokes and celery, inhibit angiogenesis.
Curcumin, quercetin, and hesperidin also inhibit angiogenesis and are available as supplements.
Nicotine from cigarettes has been shown to greatly stimulate angiogenesis and cancer growth and invasion.
This is also true of nicotine patches used to help people stop smoking. Nicotine from all sources should be avoided by all cancer patients, even that from secondhand smoke.
Preventing Inflammation The good news is that many food extracts, vitamins, and some minerals suppress these cancer-fueling substances. The following supplements are great for combating cancers: • Resveratrol • Quercetin • Curcumin • Ellagic acid • Hesperidin • Magnesium • Selenium • Vitamins C and E • Anthocyanidins (grape seed extract) • Ferulic acid • Boswellia • Aged garlic extract
All are available as supplements in highly purified forms. These substances are powerful antioxidants and they suppress cancer growth and invasion.
One of the major sources of inflammation in people living in developed countries is a high consumption of foods and drinks that promote inflammation. At the top of the list are omega-6 fats and oils (vegetable oils), refined sugars, high-fructose corn syrup and processed foods of all types.
The common vegetable oils, which include corn, safflower, sunflower, peanut, canola and soybean, all promote inflammation and have been shown to encourage the development, growth, and spread of cancer. Americans eat 50 times more of these oils than needed for good health. Food additives can promote cancer development, growth and spread. These include nitrites, MSG, other sources of glutamate and aspartate, and carrageenan, a very powerful inflammatory substance commonly added to foods.
Nitrites in foods (high amounts are found in processed meats, such as bacon and cold cuts) have been identified as cancer promoters for more than half a century.
Vitamin C suppresses the ability of nitrates to form cancer-causing compounds. Even more protective is caffeic acid (found in plums, apples, and blueberries) and ferulic acid (found in most fruits). The most powerful protection comes from ellagic acid, which is found in high concentrations in walnuts and pomegranate extract. These anticancer food extracts can also be purchased as concentrates. All are powerful anti-inflammatories and antioxidants and they inhibit the function of cancer cells.
Critical to any plan to combat advanced cancers or prevent cancer recurrence is to change one’s diet from the typical Western diet high in omega-6 oils, processed sugars and heavy red meats to one high in nutrient dense vegetables, some fruits, purified water, some whole grains and lighter meats, like chicken and turkey.
Fluoride, mercury, lead, cadmium, pesticides and herbicides, and daily stress all encourage the development, growth, and spread of cancer. Fluoride has been shown to increase cancer rates 10 percent in two large studies and in a number of lab experiments. Excess iron also promotes cancer development and especially the growth and spread of existing cancers.
Eating at least 10 servings of nutrient-dense vegetables is essential. These vegetables contain high concentrations of cancer-inhibiting flavonoids, minerals, and vitamins.
Drink Your Vegetables! The best way to maximize your intake of the anti-cancer nutrients is to blenderize your vegetables and drink them each day. The most potent anticancer vegetables include: • Broccoli • Brussels sprouts • Cauliflower • Celery • Greens (mustard collard, turnip) • Kale • Parsley • Spinach
The most potent anticancer vegetables include broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, celery, and greens (mustard, collard, and turnip) and garlic. They should be blenderized for maximum potency.
Because kale, broccoli and Brussels sprouts can contain chemicals that inhibit the thyroid gland in their raw state, I suggest lightly steaming them before blenderizing to neutralize the chemicals (Note: I include a moderate amount of these in my juice in their raw form).
DIM has been shown in studies to be quite helpful in cancer by reducing DHT and estrogen. DIM is oil-soluble, so you cannot just take a capsule containing dry powder, or a tablet (bioperine increases absorption somewhat, but I open and mix my curcumin, quercetin and dim capsules into purified fish or EV olive oil. When I had DIM tablets, I put them in some food containing oil (actually, about 1-2 TBS of plain, unsweetened goat yogurt to which I had added quite a bit of EV olive oil and a little Stevia sweetener) and chewed the tablet into the oil and food prior to swallowing.
Bananas -- even unripened ones -- are high in starch, which gets converted to sugar in the body, so I'd avoid fruit if I had active cancer. Dr. Blaylock says with active cancer to eat no fruit, but to take concentrated berry extracts. Avocado is high in mono-unsaturated fat (omega-9), as is olive oil. They are good for you, but I wouldn't say that they are particularly strong against cancer. Pomegranate/ellagic acid extract is much stronger against cancer, as are plenty of enzymes, along with curcumin + quercetin well-mixed in olive or purified fish oil, and Boswellia, and Zyflamend (if not available, see the ingredients for it and try to get them individually.
I wouldn't eat walnuts because they're high in ALA, like flax seed oil, and can cause problems with the prostate in cancer patients because the body often lacks enough of the enzyme to convert ALA to EPA/DHA (fish oil); I take purified (molecularly-distilled) fish oil instead. We add a little water (just enough so that it can be blended and form a thick juice), and a couple tablespoonfuls of Cold-Pressed Extra Virgin olive oil -- not "Virgin olive oil", which is extracted using heat and chemicals after all of the good phytonutrients are extracted into the Extra Virgin oil that the manufacturer is making. See my Metabolic Typing pages for some quick tests to determine your metabolic type and how much fat you need. I'm a protein type, so I need a lot of healthy fats (4 TBS/d EV olive, 1TBS/d EV coconut, 4 capsules/d GLA/Borage, 3TBS/d fish oil, small handful of raw pumpkin seeds (particularly good for prostate), some raw Brazil nuts, (I don't eat almonds any more, since the government's poisoned them here in the U.S. with propylene oxide, a carcinogen, and has permitted manufacturers to still label them as "raw" and not mention the cancer-causing ingredient), some line-caught cannded wild salmon (it costs a lot less than fresh wild salmon -- not "farmed", which is low in omega-3 oils and high in mercury and pesticides!). Besides the olive oil in my juice, I add it to my steel-cut raw oatmeal and other foods (see my "Regimen" on the website).
Because kale, broccoli and Brussels sprouts can contain chemicals that inhibit the thyroid gland in their raw state, I suggest lightly steaming them before blenderizing to neutralize the chemicals (Note: I include a moderate amount of these in my juice in their raw form).
Dr. Elizabeth Jeffery found that heating broccoli to 140 degrees Fahrenheit for 10 minutes maximizes the effectiveness of cruciferous vegetables' cancer-fighting chemicals (PEITC). You can approximate this by lightly steaming your broccoli for three or four minutes until they’re between tough and tender in consistency (this is especially effective with broccoli). You can also do this with other cruciferous veggies, such as watercress, cabbage, winter cress, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, kale, cauliflower, kohlrabi, and turnips. I also take Broccoli extract from Swanson, and use a Vitamix with specific fresh vegetables.
I use only raw vegetables in my juice. My Cancer&RawFood page tells what vegetables should be included -- oxalic acid in spinach, chard and beet greens is not really a concern, because I eat a variety of the recommended vegetables, not just large amounts of raw spinach. I'm not sure if you can freeze the specific vegetables that are higher in oxalic acid and cruciferous vegetables, but you needn't freeze all vegetables prior to blenderizing them. You might see: http://growingtaste.com/oxalicacid.shtml for reference amounts of oxalic acid -- but, I don't consider it a problem (unless someone was eating large amounts of the ones highest in oxalic acid and had kidney disease, perhaps). I also take 3 drops of Tri-Quench potassium iodide solution (a concentrated source of iodine) that counteracts the iodine-binding of goitrogen vegetables (cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, bind iodine and make it unavailable to the thyroid, and can cause hypothyroidism if you don't take additional iodine. Dr. Rowen's information above about lightly steaming your cruciferous vegetables prior to blenderizing, in addition to taking the Tri-Quench would probably be the best idea, along with also including a moderate amount of raw cruciferous vegetables in your blenderized juice (Note: all non-cruciferous vegetables should be raw so that the enzymes and phytonutrients aren't destroyed). You might research if freezing the cruciferous vegetables and the vegetables highest in oxalic acid would counteract the side effects as well as lightly steaming them.
I take 3 capsules/day of Dandelion; it helps support the liver and remove toxins.
I don't particularly recommend Acai as additional supplement: it's a "current fad" tropical fruit that is overpriced and overhyped and not as good as pomegranate/ellagic acid extract. Note: pomegranate juice is not a good replacement, because it's high in sugar.
To blend flax seed, I use this grinder: http://www.goldflaxseed.com/site/1411640/product/grd001 Flax seeds are not absorbed if they're not ground (you cannot completely chew them into as small pieces as a grinder can). Note that you need to add water to them & stir, and eat within 15 minutes or the oil in them starts to go rancid.
Is blending worth the effort? Definitely -- it's a crucial part of the cancer protocol! When we chew our food, we get about 10% of the phytonutrients from them; blenderizing (with VitaMix 5000, which is variable-speed) lets you absorb about 90% of the nutrition from them, but you also need to be careful to choose certain vegetables each day, too. Note that we do not blend the vegetables in to a mushy, fine pulp, but rather into a coarse, thick juice eaten with a spoon that needs to be chewed somewhat. We use the variable speed on lower settings, because the surface heat of the blades of a high speed blender destroys the enzymes and damages the phytonutrients. Blenderizing releases the anti-cancer flavonoids and phytonutrients so that each cup of the mix is equal to eating five servings of vegetables -- 2 eight ounce cups equals 12 servings of chewed vegetables.
The most powerful antioxidants and inhibitors of inflammation include the following: • Curcumin • Quercetin • Hesperidin • Resveratrol • Grape seed extract • Ellagic acid • Natural vitamin E (the gamma-tocopheryl) • Vitamin C (buffered ascorbate) • White tea extract • Vitamin D-3
Because curcumin and quercetin are poorly absorbed in their natural state, I recommend dissolving them in a tablespoon of extra-virgin olive oil and taking the mixture three times a day. The dose is 500 milligrams of each.
Special forms are available that have higher absorption at the Web site of the Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org. When they are combined, curcumin and quercetin are extremely powerful anticancer substances and they vigorously reduce inflammation.
For references and more information on cancer and nutrition be sure to visit my Web site at www.russellblaylockmd.com, and look under “published papers.” Also, see my book “Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients.”
To subscribe and access the Cancer Prevention newsletter that the above excerpts were taken from, along with several other newsletters detailing what to do if you already have different types of cancer, and other topics including vaccinations, health exams, how to select the best vitamins, healthy aging, etc.: https://www.newsmaxstore.com/newsletters/blaylock/offer9.cfm or call 800-485-4349.
Regarding the Importance Placed upon Tumor Shrinkage
The following is an excerpt from a new book by Dr. Francisco Contreras (the director of Oasis of Hope cancer center in Mexico) “Hope: Medicine & Healing” that he just sent me:
“In conventional medicine, the focus is on the disease. In alternative medicine, the focus is the patient. Close to 90% of the patients that come to the Oasis of Hope arrive with late stage cancers. Often, they feel hopeless because they have been told that there is nothing more that can be done and that they should go home and get their affairs in order. Nothing could be further from the truth: there is always hope.
“However, as long as people cling to the idea that the only hope for a cancer patient is the complete elimination of the tumors and that chemotherapy is the only treatment that can achieve this goal, few people will be able to ‘overcome’cancer. Aggressive treatment is often prescribed but it comes at a high price. Patients must suffer serious loss in regard to quality of life. Most people experience unpleasant to unbearable side effects. Statistics tell us that, more often than not, chemotherapy will fail to destroy the tumors completely because cancer naturally develops resistance to treatment. Malignant cells have a way of figuring out how to protect themselves so that they become increasingly more difficult to kill over time. Positive results are often short-lived and when the tumor stops responding to one treatment, oncologists turn to increasingly aggressive treatments until the cancer becomes untreatable (or the patient dies from the overly aggressive treatment. Besides attacking the cancer, chemo and radiation also destroy the immune system, which is needed by the body to kill cancer cells that the chemo misses or cannot kill because of resistance or metastasis. Also, more than half of the patients who “successfully” beat cancer with chemo or radiation get secondary cancers caused by the treatments.)
“We must insure that our primary criteria are, in fact, the bottom line for patients. Do the therapies significantly slow the progression of the disease, significantly extend the life of the patient, and secure quality of life for the patient?
“This is so important because much of the medical community is still entrenched in thinking that deems a treatment effective, or successful, merely because it reduces the size of the tumor. There are many treatments that shrink tumors but that do not extend the life of the patient, or secure quality of life for the patient. That is not success. It is a meaningless success at best. Sure, the tumor shrunk but the patient died.
“Likewise, there are many in the medical community that would deem a treatment ineffective, or a failure, merely because it does not result in the significant and immediate reduction of the tumor. There are treatments that do not significantly shrink tumors, but that extend the life of the patient, and secure quality of life for the patient. That is not failure. It is a meaningful success. While the tumor may still exist, the patient continues to thrive for years (and the treatments can be custom-tailored during this time to increase lifespan or sometimes cure the patient). In my years of experience working with people who live with cancer, I have found that people will always choose to live strongly even if cancer continues to be present, rather than pleasing the oncology establishment with a “successful” treatment that does not add any time to their lives (or that shortens their lives and decreases their quality of life so that they don’t want to live anymore).
“This whole concept became crystal clear to me when I accompanied my father to a prestigious cancer treatment center in New York to review his cases. My dad put a number of X-rays up for review, but the oncologists were confused if not annoyed. My dad’s patients still had tumors. One oncologist said, ‘Your treatment has failed! The patient still has a tumor. Let me show you one of my patient’s X-rays.’ The oncologist put up before and after films and explained, ‘See, the tumor is gone. Now that is success.’ My father exclaimed, ‘That is wonderful! How is the patient now?’ The oncologist replied, ‘The patient died soon after treatment.’ My father stated, ‘My patient is still alive after five years, even though there is still some cancer left.’ The oncologist said, ‘That is still a failure.’
“This experience with my father helped me to redefine our treatment goals. Tumor destruction would no longer be sufficient. We would fight to help our patients live longer and stronger.”
Info from Dr. David Williams (source for this article)
Cancer's Natural Enemy Japanese researchers have uncovered a remarkable new way to boost your immune system's ability to kill cancer cells, viruses, and pathogenic bacteria by up to 300%. This is breaking news, and you're one of the first to hear about it, right here...
Cancer rates in the U.S. are officially “off the charts.” A century ago the disease occurred in 1-in-100 people. Today, half of all adults will get some form of cancer in their lifetime. That’s 1-in-2 people!
Why this alarming increase? It’s being caused by a steady and widespread breakdown of the immune system among our population. Cancer cells, you see, are naturally present in everyone’s bloodstream, but are kept in check by a special immune cell called NK (short for “natural killer”). When NK activity weakens—either from old age, poor nutrition, or stress—cancer cells are free to multiply and become tumors. That’s what’s happening throughout our country today.
We need better treatments Once a person is diagnosed with cancer, the only treatments permitted in this country are chemotherapy and radiation. Both have horrendous side effects, such as hair loss and vomiting. Both poison the immune system and destroy NK cells, thus increasing the chances of relapse. And both have poor long-term survival rates.
This isn’t the case in other countries. In Japan, for instance, a surprising new, natural cancer treatment involves stimulating the patient’s immune system so tumors are gobbled up by a feeding frenzy of NK cells.
You might be surprised to learn that doctors trigger this sudden blast of immune activity with a natural substance found in certain Japanese mushrooms. These mushroom extracts are now one of the leading cancer prescription treatments in that country!
Using the immune system like this is the next big frontier in medicine. It holds the promise of finding real cures, not just for cancer, but heart disease, arthritis, allergies, and many other ills. It’s one of my favorite topics, which is why I report on these discoveries so often in ALTERNATIVES.
But even though the Japanese are doing a better job in the battle against cancer, it will take many years—if not decades!—before U.S. doctors accept the idea that the immune system is the key to beating cancer and other diseases. Sadly, that will be too late for most Americans who are now over 50—or younger people with a family history of these diseases.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is that scientists have recently isolated the active substance in these medicinal mushrooms (called active hexose correlated compound, or AHCC) and put it into capsule form.
AHCC accomplishes the “impossible” Initial studies done with AHCC since the 1980s suggest that this is one of the most powerful human immune boosters ever tested. It appears to increase NK cell activity by up to 300% or more! And it works quickly, usually within hours. Officials at NASA have even found that AHCC can be useful in preventing and treating infections in astronauts while they’re in space.
The best news of all is that AHCC is now available here in the U.S. without a prescription. (Note: AHCC works even better if taken with Fucoidan, such as Doctor's Best brand from www.iherb.com or www.vitacost.com)
ALTERNATIVES is one of the first and only U.S. publications to report on AHCC. (I recently devoted nearly an entire issue to it.) Since then, I’ve received so many inquiries that I’ve created a Special Report about AHCC and its unique, cancer-killing properties. If you’d like to learn more, I’d be happy to send you a copy absolutely free. Here are just a few highlights from my Report…
AHCC stimulates NK cell activity quickly, literally causing them to destroy cancer cells in hours. A medical test (the NK cell function test) shows increased NK activity just 4 hours after treatment.
Patients with liver cancer who took AHCC as part of their treatment regimen had fewer recurrences of tumors and enjoyed higher survival rates after surgery.
AHCC often reverses the presence of pre-cancerous cells on the cervix (shown by abnormal Pap smears), returning tissue to normal in as little as 6 months. (Cervical cancer is one of the most difficult to treat, so this is a Godsend for high-risk women.)
Studies show it can also be a powerful tool in the treatment of other cancers too—including leukemia, breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer.
Unlike many cancer treatments that weaken the patient over time, AHCC makes patients healthier and stronger by increasing immune function.
What I’d do if I had cancer
If I discovered I had cancer, I would certainly take AHCC immediately to give my body extra power to fight the disease. If I had a history of cancer in my family, I’d definitely take it as a preventive.
Most of the studies on AHCC were done on patients currently undergoing conventional cancer treatments. Research suggests that AHCC can greatly improve survival rates, while reducing the bad side effects of chemo and radiation.
Since your immune system is your first line of defense against more than just cancer (it’s how your body fights off the flu, colds, recurring infections, pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and virtually any other disease), AHCC offers benefits that go far beyond just cancer protection.
People who would also greatly benefit from AHCC include:
Those with a history of smoking or heavy drinking.
Individuals working in the medical field who are exposed to highly contagious diseases.
Elderly individuals with weakened immune systems. That’s because NK cells respond slower as we get older, resulting in recurring bouts of infection and noticeable decline in general health.
Note: Besides AHCC, there are other very effective immune boosters available today, such as BRM-4/MGN-3/PeakImmune4 (which I used to use), and a combination of Immune Assist Critical Care + Epicor + ProBoost Thymic Protein A + Andrographis (which I now use and believe is more effective).
Over one million prescriptions of Vioxx were sold before the public learned the news of just how dangerous it was, but Alternatives readers weren't caught by surprise -- I warned about the dangers of Vioxx and other COX-2 arthritis drugs years before they were taken off the market (note: they've been put back on the market with a warning recently...)
Official accounts blamed 140,000 cases of serious heart disease on Vioxx -- and up to 55,000 deaths. According to an FDA whistle-blower testifying before Congress, FDA officials knew about the side effect, but covered them up. This confirms what I've been saying for some time: We can't rely on the FDA to protect the public from dangerous drugs.
Meanwhile, safe supplements are persecuted and ridiculed by doctors, drug companies and FDA officials.
My job is to counter these unsubstantiated attacks with the scientific facts about natural remedies and alternative treatments.
The fact is: there are safe, inexpensive and effective ways to solve your health problems without relying on risky, expensive and overly-hyped "miracle" drugs.
Why U.S. Doctors are so out-of-touch with today's new cures In the 1950s, U.S. doctors declared war on germs, war on cancer and war on heart disease, but health statistics show we're losing each of these wars.
It certainly isn't because we don't have new solutions and cures. Over 95% of today's worst health problems have already been solved by bright, young medical researchers both here and abroad. They have already overturned long-held theories in health and medicine, replacing them with new ideas, treatments and solutions, but there's a problem: this new life-saving information isn't getting to mainstream doctors fast enough to help them.
Why so slow? Because new discoveries must have the full approval of the medical establishment in this country before they can be implemented. This is usually a long, drawn-out process because organized medicine is a huge bureaucracy that moves at a dinosaur's pace because of politics and profits.
Learning from Mother Nature Many doctors and scientists, myself included, believe it's time we stopped the "war" and tried a more cooperative approach.
Nature is wise beyond our understanding. The human body is just one wondrous example. We should be tapping this wisdom to create new cures and treatments, instead of ignoring it. Fortunately, there's a new breed of doctors and scientists who think so, too. They're using this natural wisdom to gain an unprecented advantage over illness. My worldwide intelligence network includes thousands of natural-oriented doctors and scientists whose discoveries are changing health care in our country. For example...
One of the leading cancer therapies in Japan isn't chemotherapy or radiation. Instead, doctors are learning how to stimulate the human immune system so tumors are gobbled up by the body's own natural defenses.
Why I favor natural solutions My preference is for natural treatments. They're safer. They're often much cheaper, and because they're aimed at the cause of a problem (not just the symptoms), they're usually a permanent solution.
It's not that I'm against drugs. They have their place, but they often do a lot of unnecessary damage. Chemotherapy, for instance, is so harsh it causes a 95% reduction in immune function in cancer patients, increasing the risk of a recurrence or metasisis. Instead of working with the immune system, the leading cancer treatment in the U.S. practically destroys it, leaving the patient vulnerable to cancer's return. (Note: in addition, most oncologists and radiologists "forbid" their patients from taking vitamins and supplements that have been proven to reduce the collateral damage the treatments do.)
Your survival is up to you What about when you're not sick? Who's going to educate you on how to stay that way, or even improve your health? Certainly not doctors -- their job is to fix you. And practically all of the popular health magazines are years behind the latest research.
I'm convinced this natural approach will be the future direction of modern medicine -- and the only way our world will survive.
HSI had an interesting article this month about the benefits of Concentrated Flax Hull Lignans for cancer patients and diabetics; they're from flax seed shells, or hulls, which typically don't make it into the bags of flax seed in the store, but the vast majority of the disease-fighting lignans are in the hull that encases the seed (the same with rice hulls, which are discarded or fed to pigs, although they can heal the sick and elderly...) One tsp of concentrated lignans equals the equivalent of two gallons of flax seed (there are practically no lignans contained in the oil, and the ALA in the oil can accelerate cancer in the many people lacking enough enzyme to convert it to DHA/EPA: http://www.jonbarron.org/newsletters/02/10-21-2002.php
They also had some interesting testimonials, one from an 84-year old whose lung cancer was so advanced that he was told that he wouldn't make it three months until Christmas: when one of his doctors found out that he had been treating is cancer with concentrated lignans, she became angry and was convinced that the cancer had spread throughout both lungs and his esophagus. She thought "more aggressive" steps should have been taken. However, a scan showed that the cancer had not spread and was actually reduced to one tiny nodule in his lung. This was after he had been taking the lignans for only six months.
They mention a Canadian studies with breast cancer cells being reduced by 34.2% after only one month of lignans, with 31% of the cancer cells completely killed and the expression of the cancer growth receptor Her2 (c-erB2) decreased by 71%.
The source they give is: Concentrated Flax Hull Lignans, A.R.A.I., 817-320-8172; www.aidshivawareness.org/flaxhull.htm One 5.3oz cannister containing 32 servings costs $36 + shipping; for a limited time buy two and get one free.
Another promising thing from Dr. David William's "Alternatives" newsletter this month is about modified citrus pectin (MCP), below:
Cancer Declawed Alternatives Newsletter May 2008 Volume 12, No. 11 by Dr. David Williams
Cancer is one of the most frightening diseases of our time. Even with all the modern “miracles” at our disposal, cancer treatments are often questionable—and barbaric. Conventional medicine is still looking for a treatment that will “kill” the cancer before it kills the patient.
Just as there isn’t a single causative factor for cancer, there isn’t a single effective, sure-fire treatment for all types of cancer. In past issues, I’ve discussed several natural products that have been shown to not only help prevent cancer in the first place, but also, in many cases, to treat and/or eliminate the problem altogether. Some are stand-alone products, but most can be used safely and effectively as adjunctive therapies to more conventional treatments if desired. I would still highly recommend these therapies and products if you’re ever diagnosed with cancer. They include such items as vitamin D, resveratrol, ImmPower (the mushroom extract AHCC), properly processed shark cartilage, magnesium and zinc, garlic, lycopene, saw palmetto, soy isoflavones, carotenoids, turmeric, IP6 (inositol hexaphosphate), and iron reduction techniques.
In most discussions about cancer, the one area that doesn’t get enough attention is metastasis. This is the spread of the cancer from one organ or part of the body to another. While most cancers are still treated with some form of surgery in an attempt to remove the primary tumor, the procedure is commonly followed up with chemotherapy or radiation. The goal is to eliminate any remaining cancer cells that could otherwise migrate from the original site and form new tumors. The prognosis of most cancers becomes significantly less favorable once a cancer spreads. Metastases are the biggest threat from cancer. Breast and prostate cancer pose a whole new threat when they spread to the bone, as does colon cancer when it metastasizes to the liver. In most cases it is the metastases that are responsible for a patient’s death rather than the primary tumor. If you’re ever diagnosed with cancer, in addition to utilizing every reasonable therapy like those above it’s imperative to do whatever possible to limit its spread. I don’t claim to be an expert in cancer or cancer treatment. Cancer is a very complex and complicated disease. Research strongly suggests, however, that you have to focus on two main areas to stop a primary tumor from metastasizing.
How Cancer Feeds
The first area to consider is angiogenesis, or the growth of new blood vessels. Cancerous tumors naturally have weak, poorly formed blood vessels that must be continuously replaced with new ones. And without the constant formation of new blood vessels, a tumor can’t grow. By stopping angiogenesis, you don’t directly destroy a tumor, but instead little by little cut off its supply of nutrients and its ability to remove waste products. Without new circulation, the tumor begins to shrink and gradually turns into an inert mass of tissue. Since the mid-1960s, when Dr. Judah Folkman originated the idea of treating cancer with anti-angiogenesis compounds, a few compounds that address angiogenesis have become available to use for cancer treatment, and dozens more are currently being developed and tested. One of the most potent natural anti-angiogenic compounds I’ve seen to date is shark cartilage. When it’s processed properly (without excess heat or protein-damaging solvents), it has the ability to inhibit angiogenesis. Most shark cartilage products fall far short of that goal, however. The market has become flooded with inferior products and outrageous claims, which has kept shark cartilage from being considered seriously as a cancer treatment. It’s a stigma that still exists today. If you’re a long-time reader of Alternatives, then you probably remember my investigation into shark cartilage in the early 1990s. The product I recommended at that time, BeneFin, is still available, though not from the company that had been distributing it in the US. Instead, you’ll have to order it from the country of origin, Australia. You can get BeneFin from City Health Foods at www.cityhealth.com.au. Their phone number is +61-2-4929-2609 in Newcastle, New South Wales, in case you want to get up in the middle of the night to call them. [Editor’s note: More detailed information about shark cartilage is available in the Subscriber Center of the Alternatives Web site, www.drdavidwilliams.com.]
How Cancer Spreads
The second method of limiting metastasis focuses on keeping migrating cancer cells from clumping together and forming new tumors. Cancer cells that have broken free from the primary tumor (or are dislodged during surgery or a biopsy) circulate via the blood and lymph systems. Proteins on their surface, called lectins, are attracted to certain sugar molecules found on the surface of most cells. When several begin to attach in one area, a cluster is formed and the potential for a new cancer site is established. Research efforts have recently focused on the search for compounds that can attach to the lectins on the surface of cancer cells and keep them from clumping and/or attaching to normal cells. One natural product has repeatedly shown promise in preventing cancer metastases. It’s a form of pectin, a complex carbohydrate that is commonly used for gelling jams, jellies, yogurt, et cetera. If you’ve made homemade jams or jellies, the recipe most likely called for the addition of ordinary pectin. Pectin is found in practically all plants. It’s the structural fiber that helps give the cell walls of the plant their shape and strength. Years ago, when fiber was a leading health topic and hot-selling supplement, there was considerable interest in pectin, particularly citrus pectin.
Earlier research had shown that supplementing the diet with pectin can improve bowel function and health, lower cholesterol, and help prevent cardiovascular disease. Some of these benefits stem from the increase in dietary fiber, and others from the unique chemical makeup of pectin itself. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers began to experiment with modified citrus pectin (MCP). This is pectin that’s processed to split the complex carbohydrates into smaller sugar units that can be absorbed into the bloodstream. MCP just happens to be rich in the same sugar molecule (galactose) that the proteins on cancer cells (lectins) attach to. Once the cancer cells are “locked on” to the MCP molecules, they lose their ability to clump or penetrate normal cells. They then circulate in the system until they either die or are destroyed by the immune system. And, by “locking up” or neutralizing these cancer cells, MCP also helps lighten the load of the body’s immune system.
In one of the earliest studies, researchers compared MCP to regular citrus pectin and examined their respective effects on lung tumors in mice. The MCP-injected mice had a significant reduction in lung tumor formation, while those given regular pectin had a significant increase. (J Natl Cancer Inst 92;84:438–442)
Galectins (the type of cancer cell lectins that attach to the sugar galactose) are found on cancer cells of the prostate, breast, colon, and larynx, and on lymphomas, melanomas, and glioblastomas. By binding to the galectins of these various cancer cells, MCP can help inhibit the cancer from growing and developing into the more advanced stages—as well as help prevent it from metastasizing. MCP appears to exhibit an anti-angiogenic effect as well, though how it does so is not known at this time.
The Evidence Speaks
Initial MCP products were fairly crude by today’s standards. Improved processing methods break the pectin into smaller molecular weight components, allowing it to be absorbed more readily into the bloodstream. The improved absorption increases the benefits, as reflected in the latest research. So far, most of the cancer research on MCP has been conducted on animals or with cells in the laboratory. The results, however, are impressive.
Researchers at Wayne State University in Detroit found that by adding MCP to the drinking water of rats, prostate metastases could be reduced dramatically. A group of rats were injected with live prostate cancer cells. Four days later, two groups were treated by adding MCP to their drinking water (0.1 percent for one group and 1.0 percent in the other). The third group received no MCP. After 30 days, 15 of the 16 rats in the untreated group had cancer metastases in their lungs, compared to 7 of 14 rats who received MCP at the lower level and 9 out of the 16 receiving 1.0 percent MCP. Though roughly half the rats in each treated group developed tumors, it’s very significant that those rats that received the higher amount of MCP had an average of only one metastatic tumor—compared to an average of nine lung metastatic tumors in the untreated group. (J Natl Cancer Inst 95;87:331–332) In another study, this time looking at prostate cancer in men, MCP wasn’t tested to see how it would affect the cancer itself, but rather to see if it could lengthen the time it took for the level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to double in men who had failed previous conventional treatments (radiation, cryosurgery, or radical prostatectomy). An increasing PSA level is generally recognized as an indication that the cancer is progressing; the longer it takes for the level to double, the better the patient’s prognosis. In four of the seven patients the doubling time increased by over 30 percent. Three years later, all the patients were still alive. Based on the doubling times for these patients before they entered the study, it was expected that at least two of the men would have died during that time. (Paper presented at the International Conference on Diet and Prevention of Cancer; May 1999; Tampere, Finland) (As I’m sure many readers will remember, I don’t believe that the PSA test is a very useful diagnostic tool, mostly because single readings can be very misleading. It is a reasonable test to track the progress of a disease that’s already been diagnosed, however.) In another study to test for PSA doubling time, eight of ten patients responded to the MCP treatment. Their PSA doubling time more than doubled in half the patients, with increases ranging from 129 percent to 941 percent after 12 months of treatment. (Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 03;6:301–304)
In a study similar to the one above, rats were injected with human breast cancer cells and then treated with MCP orally. Those receiving the MCP experienced significant reductions in tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastases. (J Natl Cancer Inst 02;94:1854–1862)
Colon tumors were implanted in mice. The control group received untreated water. The others received either a low dose of MCP (0.8 mg/mL) or a high dose of MCP (1.6 mg/mL) in their drinking water. When compared to the control group, the low dose resulted in a 38 percent decrease in tumor size, and the high dose treatment resulted in a 70 percent reduction in tumor size. (Altern Med Rev 00;5:546–552)
Making the Move to Real Patients
Clinically testing a natural therapy on cancer patients is extremely difficult. This is certainly understandable, since everyone wants the best possible outcome for the patients, who don’t always have the luxury of time. The case with MCP is no exception. It is only recently that testing has progressed to human cancer patients. When you look at the results, it’s important to remember that only patients with very advanced cancer, for whom all other treatments had failed and no other therapies were available, were allowed to participate. That happens to be the case with the very latest study from Germany. (Clin Med: Oncol 07;1:73–80) At the Albert-Ludwigs University in Freiburg, Germany, researchers treated 49 patients with MCP. The patients’ ages ranged from 36 to 82 years. All had advanced solid tumors (colorectal, prostate, breast, kidney, lung, cervix/uterus, liver, pharynx, pancreas, stomach, bile duct, cartilage, or skin). Ninety percent had metastases. Most had suffered from cancer for more than three years, and over half had been treated with several chemotherapy regimens and other programs. The focus was on determining how well the patients tolerated the MCP, whether they experienced an improvement in their quality of life, and whether there was a notable clinical benefit (reduction in pain levels, less need for medication, improved ability to perform daily activities, and weight gain). Based on the starting condition of the patients, no one expected any long-lasting anti-tumor response or cure, and there was none.
All the patients tolerated the therapy without any significant difficulty. Twenty dropped out of the trial before the end for various reasons—mainly because of a worsening of their condition. As a result, only 29 of the original 49 patients were able to be evaluated after receiving two cycles of MCP treatment. (Each cycle consisted of 5 grams of MCP three times a day for a period of two weeks.) Considering the health of the patients at the beginning of this study, I found it remarkable that just over 20 percent experienced an overall clinical benefit along with an improvement in their quality of life. Furthermore, 12 out of the 49 patients showed a stabilized disease during the first 8 weeks of treatment and 10 remained stabilized over the 16-week period. In six patients the disease stabilized for longer than 24 weeks while on the MCP. And one patient with very advanced prostate cancer experienced a 50 percent drop in his PSA level after 16 weeks, significant improvements in clinical benefits and quality of life, and a reduction in overall pain. At first glance, these results don’t look too promising.
After all, those individuals who have some form of cancer want more than to “live a little longer” or to be “stabilized”—they want to be completely free of the burden of their cancer. But remember that these were people whose condition had been dismissed as hopeless. At that point, a cancer patient’s body is usually so depleted that any benefit at all, even some relief from pain, is seen as nearly a miracle. Given what we know about how MCP works, and given these latest findings, it’s obvious that MCP can and should be used very early in the treatment of cancer and not just at the end stages of the disease. The results in animals have already been very positive and now with these encouraging results we can expect to see the same in humans.
Many doctors are afraid of recommending any natural therapy in the treatment of cancer unless there is supporting research data they could fall back on in the event of a lawsuit or disciplinary action by some regulatory board or government agency. It often takes studies like this one to first demonstrate the therapy is tolerable and doesn’t cause any worsening of a patient’s condition before it becomes a mainstream form of treatment. Initial research like this study provides the protection that physicians are looking for, and hopefully it will initiate the use of MCP in earlier-stage cancer patients and we’ll begin to see the true potential of MCP therapy.
Prevention as Well as Treatment
There’s another area where I feel MCP should be used routinely, and that’s for biopsies. I reported before how biopsies can actually increase the risk of spreading a cancer. When you cut or puncture a tumor, cancerous cells are released into the surrounding tissue where they can be picked up by the bloodstream or lymph system and transported practically anywhere in the body. And while the newer needle biopsies are less invasive, studies have shown there is still an increased risk of spreading the cancer throughout the needle trail.
Taking 15 grams a day of MCP (5 grams three times a day) for a week before the procedure and then for two to four weeks afterward is the recommended dose for those undergoing a biopsy. MCP has an absolute lack of toxicity. Repeated animal studies have shown it reduces the size and number of tumors, as well as the size and number of metastases. It should be an integral part of any therapeutic program to treat or even prevent cancer.
Choosing the Dose
In practically all of the cancer studies, a dosage of 15 grams a day was used (5 grams taken three times during the day). This dosage for cancer is generally used as long as the cancer is active or present; a year is not unreasonable. After that period, a generally recommended maintenance dose is usually 3 to 5 grams daily. Again, it’s totally safe. There are no serious side effects, but it’s possible that some people might initially experience a little intestinal gas or mild stomach discomfort. This is temporary and not uncommon when increasing the amount of any type of fiber in the diet. I don’t know of any specific studies on the safety of MCP being used by pregnant or lactating mothers. There’s no problem with food grade citrus pectin, so I couldn’t see where MCP would be an issue, but again there are no specific studies to support that. The studies I outlined above utilized a product called PectaSol, which is marketed in this country by EcoNugenics. You can contact them at www.econugenics.com/MCP, or call them at 800-521-0160. This is the only MCP product I feel comfortable recommending. There’s no other product of this caliber on the market, and it has decades of research and use to support its claims of effectiveness.
EcoNugenics has been on the cutting edge of MCP since the beginning. In fact, the German prostate study above utilized their latest product, which is just now being released, called PectaSol-C. Through a complicated, proprietary process they’ve been able to reduce the size (molecular weight) of the pectin components—improving their absorbability and, hence, their effectiveness. As a reader of Alternatives, you’re hearing about this new research and new product before anyone else. The company has agreed to make PectaSol-C available to readers of Alternatives before anyone else has a chance at it. Not only that, they’ve generously agreed to provide a discounted offer: If you buy three jars, they’ll send a fourth one along for free. Contact them at the above Web address or phone number, and be sure to mention that you’re a reader of Alternatives. I realize that as lengthy as this article has turned out to be, I’m able to give you only a brief summary of the studies that describe the benefits of MCP. If you’d like even more of the details of those studies, you can get an in-depth report from the maker of PectaSol-C. It’s available as a free downloadable file on their Web site, at www.econugenics.com/MCPreport.
If you’ve been with me long enough that you remember my earlier writings about MCP, you may also remember that I discussed using it to treat prostate cancer. But the new evidence is so powerful that I believe PectaSol-C would be of benefit to any individual who has any type of cancer.
Treating Cancer With Shark Cartilage (blocks new blood vessel growth) From the May, 2008 Alternatives
During childhood, the formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) is essential. During this period, blood must be delivered to expanding organs and other body tissues. Angiogenesis in adults, however, can have disastrous effects.
One of the most life-threatening circumstances dependent on new blood vessel growth is cancer. Cancer cells are, basically, normal cells that have only one function—reproduction. In their frenzy of uncontrolled growth, a haphazard maze of blood vessels develop, which must constantly be expanded and replaced. This constant drain of nutrients combined with the subsequent flood of toxic wastes, places an enormous strain on the body’s reserves. Eventually, the growing tumor mass begins to crowd and divert precious resources away from the vital organs. This eventually leads to their destruction and, ultimately, the death of the host organism.
For decades, the majority of research efforts have concentrated on treating cancer with radiation, surgery, and toxic chemicals. It was only in the mid-1980s that a few farsighted researchers began concentrating their efforts on finding substances that would stop angiogenesis. The late Dr. Judah Folkman, of Children’s Hospital in Boston, is considered the pioneer in the study of angiogenesis and its role in cancer inhibition. [Dr. Folkman has shown that if a tumor can’t develop its own blood supply, it will stop growing when it reaches 1 to 2 cubic mm—the size of a pencil point. (Sci 87;235:442–447) Remember that 1 mm is only 0.04 inches!] It was a member of Dr. Folkman’s research team, Dr. Robert Langer of MIT, who discovered the benefits of shark cartilage.
Initial studies were performed on rabbits. In one eye, tumors and tiny shark cartilage pellets were implanted in the cornea. In the other eye, tumors and identical-sized pellets without shark extract were implanted. After 19 days, the animals were sacrificed because the tumor masses in the untreated eyes had continued to grow unchecked. They had become “three-dimensional and necrotic.” The tumors next to the implanted shark cartilage pellets, however, showed little evidence of any growth or new blood vessel formation.
Next, came research from Belgium showing that oral dosage of dried shark cartilage extract was just as effective as injecting it! Cancerous animals given the oral shark cartilage extract showed practically no tumor growth. In fact, after 21 days, their tumors were about 60 percent of their original size. On the other hand, after 21 days, the tumors in animals not taking the extract were 2.5 times their original size! (This unpublished study was performed at the prestigious cancer research center in Brussels, Belgium, Institut Jules Bordet, by Dr. G. Atassi in late 1989.)
What’s amazing in all of these studies, is that shark cartilage extract doesn’t appear to have any direct effect on the tumors themselves. It works instead, by simply interrupting the blood supply and formation of new lymph and blood vessels. (J Appl Biochem Biotech 83;8:9) This probably explains why no toxicity was reported in all the studies performed in the last seven or eight years.
Studies have been conducted in humans as well, though, as in the case with the MCP I wrote about in the May 2008 issue, the studies so far have been done using individuals who were already severely ill and for whom other forms of treatment had failed. The results show remarkable benefits for both quality of life and longevity: reduction in pain, reduction in tumor size, recovery of energy, and simple survival.
I am frequently asked if I think shark cartilage could be used as a preventive measure against cancer. It seems that it could be, however there’s no long-term hard data to support this. I’ll be the first to admit that more research needs to be done, but I can tell you one thing for sure: If I had a history of either breast or prostate cancer (among others), I’d definitely be taking shark cartilage to help prevent any reccurrence. It’s a therapy that appears to provide enormous benefits while causing little, if any, adverse side effects.
As a supplement, shark cartilage is expensive. As an adjunct to cancer treatment, it’s a bargain. A single 750 mg capsule of the extract retails for more than 30 cents, and a 400 gram jar is more than $80. The normal initial dosage in cancer cases, is 60 grams per day (split in equal dosages and taken 10 to 15 minutes before each meal). Once in remission, many reduce the dosage to one capsule for every 11 pounds of their body weight. (As in the study mentioned earlier, dosages given to animals is generally 750 mg for every 11 pounds of body weight.)
Shark cartilage extract is a true breakthrough. It is non-toxic, and easy for anyone to administer, since oral consumption is the most effective route of delivery. And maybe, most important of all, it can be used in conjunction with any other form of cancer therapy whether conventional or otherwise. (Regardless of whether a person chooses chemotherapy, surgery or laetrile or Gerson therapy, shark cartilage extract can still be used safely and effectively without fear of jeopardizing any positive results!) Even still, there are a few instances when new blood vessel growth is necessary in adults and shark cartilage isn’t recommended. Some examples include: after a recent heart attack or certain types of strokes where development of collateral circulation is encouraged; during pregnancy; in cases of non-healing fractures and during muscle building programs.
Over the years, I’ve seen hundreds of cancer treatment therapies come and go. While shark cartilage extract may not be the final answer, its unique ability to inhibit angiogenesis makes it an extremely viable adjunct to all cancer treatment programs.
Modern Medicine Versus Nature in Treating Cancer by Tony Isaacs
(NaturalNews) In contrast to at least 6000 years of the practice of natural medicine, Western medicine treats the body as a collection of parts instead of as a synergistic organism. When it comes to treating broken bones and injured body parts, mainstream Western medicine is unequaled. When this same approach is used to treat illness and disease - fixing or repairing the parts where the symptoms of underlying illnesses manifest themselves, modern medicine fails miserably
In the instance of cancer, instead of addressing the causes of cancer - toxins, pathogens and a weakened immune system - we see instead treatments that either slash, burn or poison away the tumors and cancer cells, which further weakens an immune system cancer has already defeated and only worsens the conditions that led to cancer to begin with.
Even if initially successful at getting rid of existing cancer cells and tumors, the end result is a weakened body which may have major organ damage and which is more susceptible to the reappearance of the original cancer, as well as other forms of cancer and diseases.
For half a century or more, we have been told that a breakthrough or cure for cancer is just around the corner, yet the death rates for cancer remain virtually unchanged. Meanwhile, effective natural and alternative treatments which address and correct the actual causes of cancer continue to enjoy much greater success than the largely failed mainstream treatments - even as these natural alternatives are suppressed and come under increasing attack by the medical establishment.
Profit plays a huge role in Western medicine and, because nature cannot be patented, there is no profit in conducting studies on natural remedies for cancer and illness. In fact, if studies were to prove the effectiveness of natural alternatives and those alternatives were to be approved for use in treating cancer and other illnesses, the result would be to admit cheaper, safer and more effective competition into a fiercely guarded market. Instead, such alternatives are heavily suppressed, discredited and passed off as "snake oil" and "voodoo medicine".
The cold, hard fact is that cancer and other degenerative and chronic illnesses are big business - to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. When their only market place is our bodies, the vested interests of the trillion dollar world pharmaceutical empire, mainstream medicine and the institutions which depend on maintaining the status quo are not likely to allow such natural competition, even though the cost is millions of needless deaths and untold suffering.
A better plan for maintaining and increasing profit is to continue to bring new drugs into the market place which treat only symptoms and have serious side effects that lead to still more drugs in a never ending cycle so that by the time a male American reaches 65 years of age, he takes an average of 15 prescribed and over the counter medications every day - when it all started out with one or two conditions that could have been treated safely and effectively by natural means. A good model for profit, but a horrible one for humanity.
We now have over 15,000 patented and approved drugs, 95% of which have significant side effects. It is no accident that our doctors have been taught for generations, just as we have been, that the way to treat illness and disease is to prescribe approved medications – medications that are made by the single largest source by far of funding for medical education: the world pharmaceutical companies. What exactly has this mountain of medicine actually cured in the past half century? Certainly not cancer!
By far the most effective way to beat and avoid cancer is to remove the causes of cancer and to make your body as inhospitable to cancer and illness as possible. To understand what steps we should and can take, we should understand what we know about cancer:
We know that:
* The development of cancer indicates that our natural first line of defense, our immune system, has been defeated and that the presence of either toxins and pathogens, or some imbalance in our bodies have led to the development of cancer and enabled it to gain an upper hand.
* Cancer cannot develop without an impaired liver.
* Cancer cannot survive in an alkaline environment, nor can it survive in a highly oxygenated environment.
* Detoxing and cleansing our colons and liver helps restore balance, prepares our bodies to be better able to utilize natural immune boosters and cancer fighters and paves the way to rebuilding our livers and immune systems.
* Cancerous cells are diseased, impaired and/or beset by pathogens and have lost the ability to die naturally via cellular apoptosis and be replaced by healthy cells. These cancerous cells simply become abnormal and outlive the other cells in their normal cell life/replacement cycle and end up crowding out a territory over time.
* Iodine, vitamin D, and potassium are all vital to beat and ward off cancer.
* Fresh air, pure water and sunshine are also vital to maintain healthy bodies which can fight off and beat conditions like cancer.
* A natural diet of uncontaminated raw vegetables and raw fruits, with plenty of omega-3’s and balanced nutrition has been proven to be effective in numerous natural anti-cancer protocols.
* A great number of natural botanicals and supplements, such as those containing beta glucans and other long-chain polysacharrides, the oleander remedy I have written about, Colloidal Silver, Inositol (IP-6), the ABM mushroom, South Africa's "Cancer Bush" sutherlandia frutescans, cat's claw, pau d'arco, corialus versicolor mushroom, and many others have been proven to boost the immune system, destroy pathogens, protect our cells, and beat cancer.
* Sugar feeds cancer.
* Stress contributes to cancer and prevents recovery from cancer.
And so, when we go to an oncologist and are diagnosed with cancer what is the prescribed treatment? Does it incorporate ANY of the above elements? No, sadly it does not. Our doctor prescribes what he or she has been taught: cut out, radiate or poison the symptom and do nothing to address the underlying causes and natural imbalances that led to the symptom.
As a result, the way is paved for the return of the cancer or the introduction of another cancer or serious condition. Even worse, the road to further illness is often made easier due to the damage to the immune system and major organs caused by the treatment of the symptom.
Nature, on the other hand, enables us to address virtually every area of knowledge and concern. In a future installment, we will take a look at a suggested protocol based on what nature has to offer. Until then,
Healing Illness - A Natural Anti-Cancer Protocol by Tony Isaacs
(NaturalNews) Western medicine treats the body as a collection of parts instead of as a synergistic organism. When it comes to treating broken bones and injured body parts, mainstream Western medicine is unequaled. When this same approach is used to treat illness and disease - fixing or repairing the parts where the symptoms of underlying illnesses manifest themselves - modern medicine fails miserably
In the instance of cancer, instead of addressing the causes of cancer - toxins and a weakened immune system - we see instead treatments that either slash, burn or poison away the tumors and cancer cells, which further weakens an immune system cancer has already defeated and only worsens the conditions that led to cancer to begin with.
As a result, the way is paved for the return of the cancer or the introduction of another cancer or serious condition. Even worse, the road to further illness is often made easier due to the damage to the immune system and major organs caused by the treatment of the symptom.
Nature, on the other hand, gives us an array of tools to beat cancer and the underlying causes that lead to cancer, including foods, vitamins, minerals, supplements and lifestyle choices. Here is a suggested protocol based on what we know about cancer and its causes and what nature and lifestyle choices have to offer:
As soon as possible, cleanse your body to get rid of built-up toxins like heavy metals and pesticides, as well as the undigested food, fecal matter and gallstones that build up in the body by cleansing your colon and liver and by chelation to rid the body of heavy metals. Such contaminants are breeding grounds for, and causes of, disease and illness. A toxic and unclean body weakens the body's immune system that should be your first line of defense. Plus, once cleansed, the body is much more receptive to the good measures you take to rebuild your immune system and fight disease.
Cleanse your environment to the greatest extent possible and eliminate bad habits. In an ideal world, you would move to the country where there was plenty of fresh air and sunshine and less stress. In the real world you may not find that possible, so eliminate common toxins in your household, workplace and other places you spend time.
If you have mercury amalgam fillings in your teeth, have them replaced. In many instances, this step alone has led to the elimination of cancer.
Immediately eliminate bad habits and begin building good ones so that you will make sure that you no longer have habits that weaken your immune system and that you will be able to build your body to fight and conquer illness. A sedentary lifestyle with a poor diet, lack of pure water, sunshine (avoid 10am-2pm when your shadow is shorter than you) and fresh air, and constant exposure to toxins will in time lead to bad health conditions. Remember, bad health habits are open invitations for illness and disease to enter your body.
Begin and maintain a healthy immune-boosting and cancer fighting diet. A good balanced diet, pure water, fresh air, sunshine and exercise are some of the essentials. You will find that a good diet does not have to be a bad tasting diet – far from it! However, it should be noted that the very best and most healthy diet is one that is close to the diet our ancestors evolved to utilize: lots of fresh and uncooked vegetables, fruits, nuts, roots and tubers, and fish and meat uncontaminated by growth hormones, artificial fertilizers or pesticides – and little or no grain or dairy products. It should be noted that of all the foods, essentially only raw vegetables and fruits contribute to an alkaline pH.
Rebuild and strengthen the body's natural immune system. It is very likely that a weakened immune system contributed to your illness in the first place. It is absolutely certain that a rebuilt and strengthened immune system will help you beat your illness and keep it at bay. Again, good diet, nutrition and habits are all important – they lay the foundation for a strong and healthy immune system. However, they are not enough by themselves. You should build a good foundation and then make your body a healthy fortress against disease and illness. Quite simply, disease and illness hate healthy hosts.
The stronger your immune system is, the harder it is for disease to survive and grow. And, to be the very strongest you can be, you need extra measures in the form of supplements as well as the healthiest foods. An oleander extract, very much like you get when you make oleander soup, was tested in Europe in 1986-1987 and found to have six times the immune stimulating activity of the most powerful immune stimulators known to man.
Cleanse, restore and protect the liver before, during and after your anti-cancer and disease battle. Cancer cannot develop unless the liver is impaired to begin with. Plus, an effective cancer fighting regimen will result in the release of a cascade of toxins that are released when cancer cells die. Such a release can overwhelm an already impaired liver and can even be fatal if measures are not taken to protect and regenerate the liver. Some of the very best antioxidants used to protect and regenerate the liver are the ones used in the Berkson Clinical Study: Milk Thistle (silymarin), alpha lipoic acid and selenium.
Balance your pH by using Metabolic Typing (another page on this website) and get plenty of oxygen at the cellular level. Cancer cannot survive in the presence of highly oxygenated cells. Dr. Johanna Budwig of Germany has shown that for proper cellular utilization of oxygen to take place our diets must contain adequate amounts of unsaturated fatty acids.
Make sure you have plenty of iodine, potassium and Vitamin D. All have been proven to be essential in beating and avoiding cancer. As mentioned above, cancer cells have lost the ability to be shut off by the body in what is called cellular apoptosis. These cancerous cells simply become abnormal and outlive the other cells in their normal cell life/replacement cycle and end up crowding out a territory over time. Iodine goes in and both does away with the surrounding cyst where cancer has set up residence and then also goes in and allows the specific shut down of the individual cells that are abnormal, diseased, or beset with pathogens to make room for new cells.
Drink plenty of pure water and get plenty of fresh air and sunshine. Water is essential for all healthy life; however, regular tap water contains trace amounts of hundreds to thousands of pesticides, carcinogens and other industrial pollutants. For that reason, the author recommends only the purest drinking water, such as reverse osmosis filtered water. Don't overdo the sunshine, but sunshine is essential to the production of vitamin D, and strange as it may sound, has been found to be essential in warding off melanoma as well as other cancers.
Exercise in moderation. Regular exercise does not have to be grueling, but it is essential. Exercise stimulates the immune system, stimulates the production of natural human growth hormone, stimulates the production of hormones and pheromones that make us happier and healthier, and simply leads to a longer and happier life period. Innumerable studies have demonstrated the overall health benefits of exercise and the negative effects of a sedentary lifestyle lacking in exercise. It is not a coincidence that studies have shown that those who exercise only a few hours each week have up to 50% less chance of developing many different kinds of cancer.
Trace minerals are essential in beating cancer and are in fact essential to virtually all of the body's important processes when it comes to utilizing vitamins, minerals and enzymes for good health. Two hundred years ago, the top layer of our soil contained up to 80 or more different minerals. Today, farming has stripped soils the world over of all but a handful of minerals, and even those remaining minerals are at levels that are only fractions of what were in the soil 100 years ago and continuing to decline. Man was designed to utilize at least 60 trace minerals on a daily basis, and did so for thousands of years by eating the plants that processed such minerals (and the animals that ate the plants with processed minerals). The only way to get an adequate supply now is to supplement, and the very best supplementation is from plant derived minerals, such as those that come from the famous prehistoric vegetable plant deposits in Utah and contain 75 trace minerals. Those who take them regularly report remarkable improvements in their health (and the author himself takes them religiously each and every day).
The next element of beating your disease and keeping it at bay is to go on the attack. As a matter of fact, all of the elements of this anti-cancer and disease protocol are elements of attack, because they make the body strong and inhospitable to disease. What I am talking about here is more than just making the body inhospitable to your disease – I am talking about going on the attack and wiping it out! In the case of cancer, there are many very potent anti-cancer supplements, such as the ones listed above and several others.
One such supplement, named Sutherlandia OPC (not to be confused with the European antioxidant of the same name), based on a remedy I have researched and written about, has been used for the past three plus years in South Africa to treat HIV and cancer. Of well over 400 HIV patients, all are still alive and well with their symptoms either reversed or stabilized. Of over 100 cancer patients, only 8 did not survive (5 were in their very final days and could not hold down the supplement and another three succumbed to organ failure as a likely result of prior traditional Western treatment via chemo). All the rest, save two who stopped taking the supplement once the tumors were gone and returned to their old lifestyles (and had the cancer return), are now alive and cancer free or else have their cancers in remission and tumors continuing to shrink. Compare that with the results of any mainstream medicine or treatment!
Perhaps the supreme cancer destroyer I have found is Inositol/IP6, such as is found in the product Cell Forte. A one to two month intensive regimen is best. According to several users I have spoken with, it seems to just melt away tumors in a very short time period, and works well to normalize the PSA readings in prostate cancer sufferers. One caution - Inositol/IP6 may deplete minerals and/or interfere with mineral absorption, especially calcium and magnesium. Be sure to get plenty of Calcium and Magnesium (a good thing to do anyway) and take a good mineral supplement, preferably plant derived minerals (a second good thing to do anyway). Also, I believe that it is good to only take a maintenance dose most of the time and to take occasional breaks from the maintenance dose of up to one month. No more than one or two yearly intensive regimens is recommended.
Colloidal Silver is another must in my opinion - it has been shown to be deadly to single cell organisms and pathogens. The caution with Colloidal Silver is that it is not specific and you need to supplement with probiotics (yet another good thing to do anyway - especially after cleanses). Many recommend that colloidal silver be taken with colloidal gold because gold appears to enhance the silver's actions when cancer is present.
Also effective are the genuine Rife type machines, although they are hard to find and many inferior machines parading as Rife machines are out there.
Remember, what you avoid can be just as important as what you consume: Avoid sugar and white starch to the greatest extent possible. Sugar feeds cancer and other illnesses and causes a myriad of other health problems. Refined sugar is also the number one single cause of health problems in the entire world! Likewise avoid bread and other items containing bleached white flour, which is essentially empty and harmful calories that convert to sugar once ingested. Other items to avoid include non-fermented soy, pork, MSG, ALL charred foods and foods cooked at high temperature, aluminum and coated cookware, micro-waved food, food in plastic containers and styrofoam. Find out your metabolic type in order to find out what to eat and what to avoid: one man's food is another's poison!
The final key to winning your battle is your mental attitude. Remove as much stress from your life as you can and believe that you are going to win. Stress and worry accomplish nothing – worse, they are actually allies of illness and disease. You have surely heard the term "stress, the silent killer"? It's true! So you must do whatever it takes to remove stress from your life and make your mental attitude your ally. Practice EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique), meditate, take yoga, change jobs, retire, go fishing, find a pleasant hobby – do whatever you must to remove stress and have a positive mental outlook. Just remember, anyone who introduces or keeps worry and stress in your life is neither a friend nor an ally during this fight.
And make no mistake, it is a fight - likely the most important one of your life. But it is a fight you can and will win. Think it, believe it and live it!
Some in the field of natural health will tell you that you can beat cancer through diet alone, or through diet and detoxing. In many instances that is true, and some of the most effective and popular natural anti-cancer protocols are based on such a premise.
However, in my opinion, the more weapons you have in your natural arsenal, the greater your chances of success will be. That is why I advocate including one or more of the powerful natural supplements that have been proven to beat cancer and boost the immune system, and which address what we know about cancer.
Our depleted soils and the introduction of modern industrial toxins and contaminants makes it hard to build a strong enough immune system through diet alone. Our immune systems were not designed to handle the multitude of modern toxins we now face, which is why cancer is largely a modern disease.
As a final note: for those of you who continue to believe the big lie that the harsh and ineffective options offered by mainstream medicine (and its half century record of broken promises to deliver a cure or significant breakthrough) are superior to nature, I ask: When did God become a quack?
Live long, live healthy, live happy!
The Secret History of the War on Cancer Dr. Ben Kim's Natural Health Newsletter November 29, 2007
A short while ago, a good family friend told me about a recently published book called "The Secret History of the War on Cancer," written by Dr. Devra Davis.
In reviewing this book and listening to an NPR interview with Dr. Davis, I am convinced that it is the most important book that has ever been written about environmental causes of cancer.
To listen to the NPR interview with Dr. Davis, set your browser to this page .
Here are a few of the highlights from Dr. Davis' work:
* Aspartame can be a significant cause of cancer, and was only approved for use when Donald Rumsfeld performed his magic with government officials in 1981.
* "A group of researchers at Yale now estimate that radiation from CT scans of the head and abdomen will kill 2,500 people a year."
* Cellphones and ritalin DO pose dangers to human health, despite claims to the contrary made by spokespeople and "researchers" for these industries.
In short, this is a must-read book for anyone who wants a good understanding of major environmental causes of cancer, and wants to be able to share this information with family and friends who continue to put their faith and dollars in conventional cancer fund-raising campaigns.
Once again, the link to the review of this book can be found here.
For many years now, I have explained to questioning family members and friends why I cannot support conventional cancer-fighting fundraising campaigns.
I am not completely against conventional medical treatment options for different types of cancer. For example, for a good number of people that I have worked with over the past several years, I have fully supported and encouraged surgical excision of malignant tumours. My wariness of the mainstream cancer-fighting industry pertains to what I believe is excessive and often times inappropriate use of chemotherapy and radiation, as well as the lack of attention that is given to relevant environmental and personal lifestyle factors.
At long last, a devastating and truly noteworthy book on this topic has been published. It's called The Secret History of the War on Cancer, written by Devra Davis, PhD, MPH.
I am grateful to have the permission of Andrew Nikiforuk, a well known Canadian journalist, to share his impressive review of Dr. Davis' book.
I earnestly hope that The Secret History of the War on Cancer becomes a bestseller, as I believe that the people of our world desperately need to absorb its message.
Andrew Nikiforuk's Review of The Secret History of the War on Cancer, written by Devra Davis, PhD, MPH.
In 1936, the world's cancer experts assembled in Brussels to talk shop. The gathering heard a lot about workshop hazards and environmental toxins. A British scientist, who had studied identical twins, argued that cancer wasn't inherited, but mostly the product of early chemical exposures in life. A meticulous Argentine showed how sunlight combined with hydrocarbons could sprout tumours on rats. Others explained how regular exposure to the hormone estrogen prompted male rodents to grow unseemly breasts. Everyone agreed that arsenic and benzene were workplace killers, too.
Since then, the cancer establishment has retreated from the truth faster than Canada's commitment to a greener country. What began as sincere investigation into the economic root causes of a complex set of 200 different diseases, at the turn of the 20th century, quickly degenerated into a single-minded focus on treatments after the Second World War, argues Devra Davis, one of North America's sharpest epidemiologists (her previous book, When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle Against Pollution, was a finalist for the National Book Award).
In the process, industry and its propaganda hit men have used every opportunity to discredit, dismiss or disparage information on cancer hazards in the workplace or at home. So let me warn comfortable readers here and now. This courageous and altogether horrible book is about as unsettling as it can get. It painstakingly documents such a persistently foul pattern of deceit and denial that I often wanted to throw it against a wall and scream.
Furthermore, Davis's hair-raising investigation - in what is easily the most important science book of the year - will rob you of any lingering, Disney-like fantasies you might have entertained about the nobility of cancer fundraising campaigns. And if you have lost a relative or friend to a malignant tumour (odds are you have), Davis will make you weep again, knowing that fraud and outright criminal neglect have turned a 40-year-long medical war into a questionable $70-billion charade.
Even Davis can't hide her own disbelief at times: "Astonishing alliances between naive or far too clever academics and folks with major economic interests in selling potentially cancerous materials have kept us from figuring out whether or not many modern products affect our chances of developing cancer." She then diligently documents, for example, how some of the world's most prominent cancer researchers, such as the late Sir Richard Doll, the epidemiologist who was instrumental in linking smoking to health problems, secretly worked for chemical firms without disclosing these ties when publishing studies.
Davis, a modern scientist committed to moral clarity, knows her stuff and then some. After decades of front-line battles against air polluters, she now heads the world's first Centre on Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. She too has smelled and felt cancer firsthand, having lost two parents and many friends, including the comic Andrea Martin*, to the disease. She shines, in short, with a burning indignation about the abuse of power in medicine.
Her angry history of the way free and open discourse on cancers in the workplace has become as elusive as meaningful political debates reveals the rot with the bluntness of a chemo treatment. When men who bottled liquid lead as a gasoline additive in the 1920s started to drop like flies, General Motors blamed the workers and called lead a "natural contaminant." When dye-makers at DuPont got bladder cancer from working with benzidine in the 1930s, the company, like an errant spouse, first denied the findings. Then they refused to record cases. Finally, they suppressed or delayed publishing the results.
After inhaling tar and poisonous fumes from coke ovens, black steel workers succumbed to waves of lung cancer in the 1950s. Yet industry argued that blacks were just more vulnerable to lung-consuming tumours. It took an enterprising study of dying Mormon coke-oven workers to challenge the lie. Damning studies on the health of asbestos workers couldn't find a home in the 1930s, and to this day, Canada shamefully remains an exporter of the lung destroyer.
Benzene, a true-blue leukemia-maker that can cause workers to bleed out, has been the subject of 100 years of deceit and denial. When Myron Mehlman, a toxicologist with Mobil Oil, told Japanese officials in 1989 that gasoline with 5-per-cent benzene was damned dangerous and shouldn't be sold, the company fired him. Davis reports that ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Shell have invested $27-million in China to "contradict earlier claims that link exposure to low- and mid-levels of benzene to cancers and other diseases."
In 1986, researcher William Fayerweather put together a computerized system for tracking the health of every worker at DuPont's chemical plants. Davis found that "neither he nor his system any longer work for DuPont." She reports that men and women who produced computer chips for IBM are now dying young from cancers of the breast, bone marrow and kidney.
While China now leads a global economic boom, it's also exploring new opportunities for cancer. Even its secretive, Ottawa-like government now concedes that the country's industries use the nation's rivers as industrial urinals. Not surprisingly, China now lists cancer as its number-one killer.
Many of Davis's findings simply stunned me. Consider the invasion of computerized imaging technology (CT scans) in modern medicine. Since its invention in the 1970s, CT scanning has become a $100-billion industry that creates nifty three-dimensional images, yet exposes patients to radiation. CT scans have become such a favoured technology that one in every three scans recommended for children is probably unnecessary.
In the last 25 years, the amount of radiation zapping North Americans from scanning and the like has increased fivefold. Now ponder this stunner: "Modern America's annual exposure to radiation from diagnostic machines is equal to that released by a nuclear accident that spewed the equivalent of hundreds of Hiroshimas across much of Russia and Eastern Europe." Most physicians don't know that a typical CT scan equals 400 chest X-rays. A group of researchers at Yale now estimate that radiation from CT scans of the head and abdomen will kill 2,500 people a year.
Davis also presents some disturbing data on aspartame, cellphones and Ritalin. Armed with what a prominent toxicologist would later describe as "uninterpretable and worthless" studies on aspartame, Donald Rumsfeld, then CEO of Searle & Co. (since acquired by Monsanto), used his formidable political contacts to gain government approval for the food additive in 1981. Yet the U.S. Air Force still reports that aspartame "can cause serious brain problems in pilots." Despite whatever malarkey you might have read, cellphone users still have double the risk of brain cancer and folks under 18 years of age really shouldn't be using them. Ritalin, the drug to slow kids down, can rearrange an individual's chromosomes, yet in some school districts more than 10 per cent of the students are now on the drug. As Davis notes, "Highly profitable industries have no incentive to ask whether the products on which they depend may have adverse consequences."
Each and every chapter in this book offers a uncomfortable revelation. Pioneering research on the deadly effects of tobacco and environmental hormones by the Nazis secretly found its way to many of U.S. corporations producing the same questionable goods. The American Cancer Society spends less than 10 per cent of its billion-dollar budget on independent studies. The great Wilhelm Hueper, the bold pathologist who wrote the book on "occupational tumours," suffered one indignity after another for simply reporting the dangers of uranium mining. And on it goes.
So, the strange reality of cancer fighting truly reads like one of Kafka's nightmares. Most of the 100,000 chemicals commonly used in commerce have not been tested. Their proliferation in the workplace has created a cancer epidemic and a medical-business industry to treat it. Given the toxic nature of many cancer treatments, including radiation and chemotherapy, Davis claims that cancer researchers and cancer physicians are dying in record numbers.
Davis not only sheds light on this darkness, she also opens many hopeful doors. She celebrates tough, rural, blue-collar mothers who have taken on the companies that have riddled their children with cancer-makers. And she welcomes groups such as Health Care Without Harm, a novel coalition focused on getting toxic products out of hospitals.
But her remarkable and disturbing history ultimately illuminates another hidden hydrocarbon holocaust. Our frightful addiction to fossil fuels has not only fouled the atmosphere but given us a wealth of chemicals, plastics and technologies that increasingly undoes the health of millions with cancers. It, too, has given us rich armies of PR men employing "the same expert public relations strategies that kept us tied in knots on tobacco."
Davis knows that changing medical perspectives and priorities, from treatment to prevention, will be an enormous task. But she does not despair. In fact she ends her book with a simple Talmudic story. Faced with a complicated assignment, a group of workers rhyme off the usual excuses: They haven't got the tools or they haven't got the energy. But a good rabbi (sounding much like Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings) sets them straight: "It is not for you to complete the task," he says. "But you must begin."
Davis's masterful book has shown us why we must begin rethinking cancer research and treatment now for our children's sake. ***
To listen to an NPR interview with Dr. Devra Davis, click here: Devra Davis: Chemicals, Cancer and You ***
Andrew Nikiforuk [http://andrewnikiforuk.com/] has written extensively about the cancerous legacy of uranium and oil sands mining in northern Canada. He is the author of Pandemonium , about how global trade and climate change threaten food security.
From Dr. Blaylock: "Avoid sugar, no matter what the source. Honey is sugar. Sure, there are a few flavonoids included, but it is still sugar and can be used by the cancer. Fructose, while it does not directly promote insulin release, increases free radical damage to the cells, thereby increasing the risk of and accelerating existing cancer. In addition, fructose can be easily converted to glucose during the digestive process, which is what cancer uses for fuel, and which also increases insulin and bad cholesterol.
Avoid fruit juices. While fruit juices contain many anti-cancer flavonoids and vitamins, they also are high in sugar and many have high levels of fluoride. This is especially true for most commercial grape juices.
Vegetable blenders (such as the Vitamix) have two real advantages over juicers. First, they do not waste anything. In addition to the thousands of nutrients inside them, plants contain numerous, often powerful phytochemicals on the outside of their leaves and stems. Among these phytochemicals are glycoproteins and polysaccharides which regulate immunity. Furthermore, plant pulp contains a lot of fiber. Second, vegetable blenders are a snap to clean. Not any blender will do, however. Rather, the machine must be powerful enough to turn vegetables and fruits into liquids (so that 95% of the nutrients are absorbed, versus 15-20% if chewed thoroughly). The vegetable blender that I have in my kitchen is the variable-speed Vita-Mix 5000. (Note: higher speeds will increase the contact temperature on the cutting edge of the blades and damage enzymes, so a variable speed blender is important).
When blenderizing fruits and vegetables, of even more importance than using the right machine is choosing the right ingredients. In addition, you need to thoroughly clean the food with a safe vegetable wash before putting them in the machine.
One of the common mistakes people make when preparing juice is using only their favorite vegetables or fruits, usually based upon taste. Using only one vegetable (or lot of one), such as carrots, is wrong for two reasons. First, some vegetables are very high in sugar and starch which can stimulate tumor growth. Second, you miss important phytochemicals found in other plants. Some special anticancer flavonoids are found only in certain vegetables and not others. Only by mixing a variety of specific types of vegetables can you take full advantage of these potent anticancer nutrients.
Fruits are generally discouraged on the anticancer diet, despite the fact that they contain some very powerful anticancer and antioxidant flavonoids. They should be especially avoided by patients already having metastasis. Patients without metastasis can enjoy fruits with a low sugar content, such as strawberries, raspberries and grapefruit, but only in limited amounts. This means no more than half a cup a day. Low or sugar-free, concentrated fruit (particularly berry) extracts, such as ellagic acid/pomegranate/raspberry are a better choice. Note that they should not contain artificial sweeteners, either, except for stevia or Lo Han Guo." -- Dr. Russell Blaylock
"The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumours frequently exhibit an increase in anaerobic glycolysis - - a process whereby glucose is used as a fuel by cancer cells with lactic acid as an anaerobic by-product - - compared to normal tissues. The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of glucose to lactate generates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid build-up. Thus, larger tumours tend to exhibit a more acidic pH. This inefficient pathway for energy metabolism yields only 2 moles of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) energy per mole of glucose, compared to 38 moles of ATP in the complete aerobic oxidation of glucose. By extracting only about 5 percent (2 vs. 38 moles of ATP) of the available energy in the food supply and the body's calorie stores, the cancer is "wasting" energy, and the patient becomes tired and undernourished. This vicious cycle increases body wasting. It is one reason why 40 percent of cancer patients die from malnutrition, or cachexia. Hence, cancer therapies should encompass regulating blood-glucose levels via diet, supplements, non-oral solutions for cachectic patients who lose their appetite, medication, exercise, gradual weight loss and stress reduction." (from http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer/Hydrazine.html)
But also understand that not all vegetables and fruits are equal at treating cancer. Some vegetables do not contribute significantly to treating cancer and some fruits do not contribute significantly to treating cancer (at least not that we know of at the current time). On the other hand, some vegetables are very potent cancer killers, as are some fruits.
Q: If sugar is bad for people with cancer, how about honey, another simple sugar? A: Honey is a case of both a little good with a lot of bad. Honey contains simple sugars, the fructose (38 percent) and glucose (31 percent) feed cancer cells.
A: "Polysacharides and glucan molecules are not broken down into the particular sugar that feeds cancer -- glucose. Cancer doctors advise patients to use sugar-free extracts of ellagic acid/pomegranate, berries, etc. because the fruits themselves contain too much sugar. In fact, Blaylock advises no fruit at all with active cancer (only sugarless extracts in order to obtain the beneficial polyphenols without the harmful sugar), and afterwards only unripe fruit in strict moderation. He also advises to use very limited amounts of root vegetables, such as carrots, for the same reason. I have detailed information about which fruits and vegetables are best on my website. Cancer cells ferment sugar for energy, and cannot metabolize the lipids that normal cells do, nor develop energy in their mitochondria from ATP, so eating a lot of carbs and sugars are like throwing gasoline on a fire.
Avemar has some impressive research, but Epicor, Immune Assist Critical Care, AHCC, MGN-3/PeakImmune4, PSP, PSK, AEC, and many other immune boosters do, too -- it's best to use several different types that boost different portions of the immune system. Fructose (as found in Avemar) causes a loss of serum glucose control in the blood, elevates LDL (bad) cholesterol and generates a lot of free radicals, among other detrimental things.
For liver involvement, I would refer to the liver/detoxifying supplements on my website (Chemo Protocol and Cancer Protcol pages): 500mg curcumin and quercetin mixed well in 1TBS EV olive or purified fish oil 3 times a day; dandelion root, milk thistle extract, artichoke extract, etc. (whole herb standardized extracts). Parsley and the homeopathic Solidago and Bucco help with detoxification via the urinary system.
Blending, not juicing, (juicing throws away the good pulp and skins) specific vegetables supports the intestines and all types of cancer. Calcium d-Glucarate, DIM, sulforaphane and other compounds found in lots of cruciferous vegetables, help with hormone-related cancers. Besides his book Dr. Blaylock has Breast, Prostate and two overall cancer newsletters that you can receive with a subscription(https://www.newsmaxstore.com/newsletters/blaylock/offer1.cfm). There is a lot of detail in Blaylock's book "Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients" that I strongly recommend that you read. I have unfortunately seen many people die who insisted that sources of sugar (such as honey) and other unhealthy foods were okay for cancer just because they had the words "organic" or "natural" in front of them; just remember, "organic sugar will give you organic cancer (or diabetes)".
It is true that there is no way to get rid of all sugar in your body. You wouldn't want to even if you could. For one thing your brain gets its energy from glucose, and you also need an adequate supply of eight specific simple sugars (monosaccharides) in order for your immune system to recognize friend and foe (there are actually surface receptors on various cells and pathogens that immune cells bump up against and "read") -- if your diet contains all eight. The problem is that we eat way too much of 3 of them and virtually none of the rest. See my main "Cancer Protocol" page for Immune Boosters that I use and like (these work synergistically together to powerfully stimulate the Natural Killer and T-Cells of the immune system).
The object is to starve the cancer by not eating glucose, fructose and galactose in excess, and to get the proper amount of the remaining 5 sugars (glyconutrients / monosaccharides). It is correct that normal cells can derive their energy from fat -- and cancer cells cannot. I eat no glucose or white starch at all, and haven't for many years. As for carbs, I have a slice of Ezekiel sprouted whole-grain bread (lower in carbs than unsprouted) most days, and with 3 TBS of steel-cut (or whole) oats with 2 TBS of freshly-ground organic golden flaxseed and maybe 2 TBS of wild or brown rice at supper. That, along with 1 carrot in my vegetable juice blend and a banana or apple, supplies sufficient carbs/glucose for me now that I'm in maintenance mode. I use Stevia on my oats and no other sucrose, dextrose, glucose or fructose. I also take some Immune Boosters (see my main "Cancer Protocol" page for details).
As for beta-glucans, they are combined with different protein molecules depending upon what food they originate in (providing that they have been carefully extracted with a special hot water process that preserves the protein molecules as well as the beta-glucan) and each stimulates a different portion of the immune system; that's why a mixture of medical mushroom extracts, a fermented yeast product, along with some thymus boosters (on my website) is better than a single ingredient." -- Dr. Russell Blaylock
Help with Addictions
Alcohol, Tylenol, NSAIDs, statin cholesterol drugs, etc. further stress the liver, which is already weak in a cancer patient (even if it doesn't already have tumors, too). Also, smoking contributes to cancer. Dr. Amen has been doing research on addiction and the brain: he's found that non-addicts are able to decide around and around in their minds over possiblities and come out of the loop successfully not choosing the thing or substance they're addicted to, most addicts have a chemical inbalance that keeps them in the same loop doing the thing they're addicted to over and over almost as if they were helpless to change it.
Dr. Amen uses various supplements to help bring addicted patient's brains back into balance and he tells what they are in his books. It sounds pretty exciting and worth getting his books -- for some people, their addiction problem to alcohol, smoking or drugs needs to be addressed in order to increase their chances of recovery from cancer.
It frustrates me how so many people say that they'd rather die than give up junk food, alcohol, use a blender, etc. but then, when they are out of time, suddenly decide that having a healthy diet and lifestyle wouldn't be impossible after all so that they could go on living. I pray to God that, when these people finally realize this, that there is enough time left for them to beat this. It's like turning a great big ship: if you notice when it first starts turning off-course and apply corrective measures, gentle nudges can move it back on course, but once it starts turning really fast (and with tremendous force) the wrong way, it's extremely hard to stop its momentum. There would be a much higher success rate if people used natural methods initally, rather than after conventional medicine had destroyed their bodies and immune systems.
Did you know there are natural or alternative cancer treatments that can provide a 97% true cure rate on recently diagnosed cancer patients, and can even achieve a 50% true cure rate on cancer patients given up on by orthodox medicine?
While this website has articles for recently diagnosed cancer patients (see the Yellow Box below this blue box), the main focus of this website is on identifying the very small number of the 300+ alternative cancer treatments which are strong enough to deal with the disastrous condition of cancer patients who have had extensive orthodox treatments, many of whom have been given up on by orthodox medicine. These potent alternative cancer treatments are generally not the best-known treatments!!
All of the information on this website is FREE to the world. You don't need to pay a penny for any of this information, but you do need to do a lot of reading. Nor is anything sold from this website. This is a public service website. (http://www.cancertutor.com/)
Part of the the problem why people think that natural medicine doesn't work is because people wait until they've tried every other option and are at death's door before they'll consider other options. Even natural medicine has very little chance of pulling back from the grave those people whom regular doctors have sent home to die, but in some cases (not many) it can even do that. See http://www.cancertutor.com/
Note: The 50% number Webster mentions is in SOME types of cancer with certain particular protocols that just happen to be right for that particular individual -- I do not advise waiting until a person is dying until they try natural medicine. The cure rate is very much higher for people who never have had conventional treatment than if they go with conventional treatment, like Webster says. See also: http://www.cancertutor.com/Other/NoCancer1.html
really want to stop the spread of cancer and cure the patient? While individual doctors may want to cure their cancer patients, as far as an industry is concerned, the evidence is overwhelming that the answer to that question is ‘no’. Cancer – Step Outside the Box documents case after case of natural cancer treatments (i.e. alternative cancer treatments), and even some orthodox cancer treatments, that were shut down by the authorities (usually the AMA, FDA or FTC) because they were too effective at curing cancer! There are dozens of alternative cancer treatments that can stop the spread of cancer and even cure the cancer completely. In this excellent book, Ty Bollinger discusses the most proven of these treatments. -- R. Webster Kehr (http://www.cancertutor.com/)
There is not one, but many cures for cancer. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI, and the major oncology centers. They have too much of an interest in the status quo. -- Dr. Robert Atkins, MD
If you’re concerned about the “C” word, then Cancer - Step Outside the Box is the book you’ve been waiting for. It reveals the most potent and well-proven alternative strategies for preventing and treating cancer... without surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation (i.e. the “Big 3”).
Inside, you’ll find a wealth of information that your doctor probably doesn’t know. Here’s why: while at medical school, doctors not only receive biased information but also learn a very drug-intensive style of medicine. As a result, most doctors are still thinking “inside the box” when it comes to cancer. Sadly, the cancer “box” is largely the creation of multinational pharmaceutical companies attempting to peddle their poisons (such as chemotherapy) in an effort to increase shareholder profits. Sadly, these profits are oftentimes generated at the expense (both monetarily and physically) of the dying cancer patient.
Did you know that the overall success rate for most cancers treated with the chemotherapy is a paltry 3%? In other words, it has a 97% fatality rate. And it is not only legal, but it is the only treatment recommended by most conventional oncologists! That’s right…the official position of most conventional oncologists is that the “Big 3” treatments (specifically chemotherapy) is the only treatment protocol that should be available to sufferers of cancer. Is this the “Twilight Zone” or what?
BEWARE: If you attempt to step “outside the box” and find an alternative cancer treatment that actually works and increases your lifespan by years or decades, then you may be committing a crime. The “Big 3” conventional cancer treatments are more and more being enforced by gunpoint. Parents who attempt to protect their children from the dangers of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation may find themselves accused of kidnapping their own children! Just look at the story of Abraham Cherrix when you get a few minutes. Google it and you'll be amazed. . .
Either we are free or we are slaves. There is no middle ground. You see, the Cancer Industry is like the slave owners 200 years ago. If you ran a plantation back in the slave days, you wanted to make sure that your slaves remained obedient, submissive, and illiterate. If a slave had the nerve to disobey “the master,” then he was beaten within an inch of his life. Books weren’t allowed, thus slaves were unable to learn to read. These steps were taken to insure that they would never have the boldness to venture off the plantation and the master would have a “slave for life.” In the Cancer Industry, patients are like slaves, and the slave owners want to make sure that they remain enslaved by suppressing information about alternative treatments and persecuting those who dare to question their authority and use an alternative treatment.
Today’s world is like “the matrix.” White is black and black is white. The Cancer Industry is well organized, unbelievably well funded, and has total control over the news media due to the massive amounts of advertising dollars spent by Big Pharma. It takes time to get to the bottom of important issues, and therein lies the problem. People want to learn everything they need to know about something by watching an hour of TV; students want to learn complicated mathematics while they play video games. But this won’t work when it comes to learning about the cures for cancer. You must do your homework!
This book, Cancer - Step Outside the Box, will probably challenge everything you have heard since you were born. From the crib, we have been taught to blindly believe everything we read in the papers and on the internet, what we hear on the radio, and what we watch on TV. You see, the world of cancer politics and cancer treatments is not a simple world, and it is impossible to overcome decades of constant propaganda and false information by casually reading for 45 minutes.
Cancer - Step Outside the Box is packed with priceless information and cancer treatment protocols which are being used to to treat and even reverse cancer in multiple cancer clinics worldwide. Click HERE to read the Vic Whiley story entitled "Cancer Survivor." It is a very encouraging account of beating cancer through persistence, hope, and good alternative treatments. -- Ty M. Bollinger
When your surgeon says "we got it all" -- don't believe him!
If you're challenged with cancer and, after surgery, your doctor tells you you're cancer-free, this is imporatnat news for you. New evidence shows you probably have cancer cells in other places that simply haven't grown yet.
For a long time, doctors though patients who developed cancer after a transplant did so because of the immune-suppressing drugs, but a startling finding suggest these cancers are from the donor organ! In the study, tests on female kidney recipients who later deveoped Kaposi's sarcoma, a type of skin cancer, found that the DNA of the cancers contained Y chromosome material. Y chromosomes are from males and would indicate the cancer came from male donor cells. Melanoma has been transmitted the same way.
Now, how could a kidney transplant carry skin cancer cells to the recipient? When cancer goes into remission, it will often return at distant sites several months to many years later, so we know cancer cells migrate out from the primary site and seed other organs at a very early stage. Hence, in organ donors, their organs may be seeded with cancer cells, long before they know they have a cancer, and their immune systems were strong enough to hold them in check. In the recipient, who must take immune suppressive drugs to prevent organ rejection, the cancer cells have a huge edge on the immune system.
Action to take: For years, we've heard doctors say to cancer patients, "we got it all." Only several months later, the same patient lies dying of the disease. I'm not a fan of one-stop cancer treatment (surgery) for this very reason: cancer is a systemic (covers the whole body) and lifetime disease, and must be treated as such. That's not to say that a cancer patient has to die of the same illness. In fact, I know the opposite is true, but now that you know cancer seedlings may be undetected, but living anywhere in your body, you might consider visiting an integrative doctor for systemic support and continuing to follow a very healthy diet and lifestyle along with taking specific supplements for life. I feel that the most advanced physicians for cancer will be those found on the website http://www.iptq.org/ -- Dr. Robert Rowen ---
Our diets and lifestyles are really bad (along with all of the pollution and toxins, cosmetics, cleaning products, dryer sheets, commercial food, etc.): it seems like everywhere we go, we meet people with cancer -- and the media, government and doctors are doing their best to confuse anyone who might have a vestige of common sense remaining.
Besides milk thistle, dandelion root, artichoke standardized extracts and the other liver support detoxifiers (Liver C/S, TMG, non-GMO Lecithin, etc. -- see my "Chemo Protocol" and "Hepatitis/Liver Support" pages), Dr. Blaylock talks about things that specifically help keep cancer in the liver from spreading (Arabinogalactan; lactoferrin; IP-6; Artemisinin; Maitake D or DM fractions or Immune Assist Critical Care). Here's where I got my Arabinogalactan: http://www.betterlife.com/prod_home_page.asp?prod_id=16813 [Food Science of Vermont Arabinogalactan Powder $15.99 027147 100 Grams]. Multivitamins, full spectrum multicarotenes, 500mg each of 95-98% Curcumin and Quercetin mixed well in 1TBS CP EV olive oil 3xday, plenty of enzymes on empty stomach often (see emails), lots of ellagic acid/pomegranate extract, lots of specific raw vegetables, healthy oils, etc.
Dr. Blaylock says we now know that many cancers are related to inflammation and nutrients that reduce inflammation can by themselves slow, and occasionally even shrink, these tumors. Good anti-inflammatory supplements include: Zyflamend (http://www.vitacost.com/New-Chapter-Zyflamend); Boswellia (http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-Boswellia-Extract); Apigenin (a component of celery, http://www.swansonvitamins.com/ -- Ultra Apigenin, SWU375), Curcumin, Quercetin, Kaempferol (found in fruits and ginkgo biloba), Amentoflavone (very powerful -- a component of ginkgo biloba, Swanson SW893), lactoferrin (found in Mt Capra Goat Milk Colostrum), enzymes, ginger, GLA (Borage and Evening Primrose oils), EV coconut oil, and purified fish oil.
Another very promising weapon to reduce or prevent metastases is MCP, modified citrus pectin. The best source (used in clinical studies) is: PectaSol-C (www.econugenics.com/MCP or call 800-521-0160; ask about their buy 3 get 1 free special mentioned in Alternatives. See www.econugenics.com/MCPreport for more details of the studies.) 5g three times a day (15g/d) was used in the studies as long as the cancer was active or present; after that, the maintenance dose is 3-5g/d. (May2008 Alternatives newsletter by Dr. David Williams).
Carrageenan powerfully increases inflammation by stimulating the COX-2 enzyme; many foods contain it. Avoid red meat (most of "heme iron" from meats is absorbed, while little of that in vegetables is -- unless you eat them with an acid, such as the acid form of vitamin C) and iron-containing supplements as iron stimulates cancer. White starches, such as flour, macaroni, most bread, etc. have iron added to them. Omega-6 fats (corn, soybean, vegetable, cottonseed, sunflower, safflower, etc. oils) increase inflammation while diets high in certain fruit extracts, vegetables and purified fish oil (omega-3) cause a dramatic reduction in cancer promotion and risk.
A good website to see regarding metabolic typing, enzymes, supplements and lifestyle changes and their effect upon cancer is run by a colleague, Nick Gonzalez (http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/)
Along with other types of cancer, Nick (and the doctor he studied under, Dr. Kelley) has done a lot of work with pancreatic cancer. Kelley cured himself of pancreatic cancer and went on to live another 45 years, until he died of heart problems. (I have information on pancreatic cancer on the page "Cancer&RawFoods")
IPT, The Amazing Treatment That Makes Chemotherapy 10,000 Times More Effective -- And Totally Safe!
By Robert Jay Rowen M.D.
I'm sure you're asking, "How can any chemotherapy treatment be safe?"
That's a good question, as chemotherapy destroys cells unilaterally -- good and bad. But the power of chemotherapy can be harnessed to work the way we want it to.
Chemotherapy is the use of cytotoxic (cell-killing) chemicals in a system-wide effort to eliminate cancer cells. The first chemicals used for chemotherapy were not originally intended for that purpose. During a military operation in World War II, a large number of soldiers were exposed to the chemical warfare agent mustard (the agent used in mustard gas). Afterward, the military personnel were found to have abnormally low white blood cell counts and it was hypothesized that mustard gas might work as an agent against cancer, which grows at a similar rate as white blood cells. Later, several patients with advanced lymphoma were given the agent intravenously and their improvement was remarkable, if only temporary. This provided the basis to develop other drugs that would have similar effect on cancer cells.
Conventional therapy relies on the fact that cancer cells are rapidly dividing. The process of cell division is a highly vulnerable state during which DNA or its controls can be poisoned, resulting in cell death. That’s the premise behind chemotherapy and radiation, which target dividing cells. However, normal cells also divide. The bone marrow (blood making cells) can divide as fast as cancer cells, and the gastrointestinal tract is not far behind. Consequently, these two systems also become highly poisoned by chemotherapy, resulting in the literally horrible “side effects” of chemo, which are not really side effects at all when you understand the process. They are really direct effects.
In my whole career, I have never seen a documented case of metastatic cancer cured by chemotherapy, yet it is the predominate treatment offered in the country today.
The real answer to cancer lies in prevention, not treatment once it occurs. Since many readers may already have cancer or know someone with cancer, the knowledge that there exists a kinder, gentler (virtually non-toxic) yet likely far more effective therapy than conventional chemotherapy should interest all of us.
At a recent medical conference, I had the joy to hear Dr. Steven Ayre of Chicago give a presentation on a most novel way to administer chemotherapy – non-toxic and more effective. What a switch.
Many years ago, he became aware of the work of a visionary Mexican physician who was using the hormone insulin to treat and cure a myriad of diseases, from end-stage neurosyphilis (even before the age of antibiotics) to cancer. Traveling back and forth to Mexico, Dr. Ayre observed and was instructed on the technique by the physician descendants of the pioneer, Donato Perez Garcia, MD. The results were extraordinary. The next step was to try to understand how the administration of insulin prior to exposing cancer to chemo would make the cells so much more sensitive, so that only a fraction of the conventional dose would be necessary to get the desired effect. These doses were so small that normal cells were left unharmed!
Insulin Potentiation Therapy had its origins in the 1920s in Mexico City with a 28-year-old military doctor named Donato Perez Garcia. After reading about using insulin to treat non-diabetic malnutrition, Dr. Garcia decided to treat his own chronic gastrointestinal condition. He effectively treated himself for the disorder and then moved on to other diseases. Before the discovery of antibiotics, doctors used heavy metals, such as mercury, to treat diseases such as syphilis, the goal being to kill the disease before the toxic heavy metals killed the patients (much like doctors today use chemotherapy to treat cancer). Dr. Garcia believed insulin might aid the delivery of these drugs and keep the doses smaller while having a greater effect on the disease.
Dr. Perez began treating the famous and wealthy people of Mexico, as well as normal patients. He treated them not only for syphilis, but also for ulcers, gallstones, and appendicitis. He was successful and word of his treatment spread by referrals. His results were so compelling that the Mexican Secretary of Health recommended further study of IPT and the Mexican Army established an experimental clinic to do just that. The results were certified in 1940 and were judged to be spectacular. In the spring of 1944, he made a trip to the Tijuana and San Diego area and treated many diseases, including syphilis, malaria, and even a gallbladder disease in a general’s wife. The trip was documented in a short article in Time magazine on April 10, 1944.
World War II brought the first widespread use of penicillin (which was discovered in 1928, the same year as the development of IPT) and made IPT obsolete as a treatment of syphilis. Dr. Perez, however, continued to work with IPT as a treatment for other diseases. He even found that IPT boosts the effectiveness of antibiotics. In 1945, Dr. Perez used IPT to treat cancer for the first time. In 1947, he made one more trip to the U.S. to demonstrate IPT. It did not catch on and he returned to Mexico City and his private practice.
In the late 1950s, Dr. Perez passed on his work in IPT to his son, Dr. Donato Perez Garcia y Bellon (Dr. Perez II). They worked closely from 1956 to 1971, when the elder Dr. Perez passed away. During this time, they further developed their treatments for cancer to include a simple electrophoresis technique and an apparatus called an “Oncodiagnosticator” that could detect a chemical imbalance that could lead to or support cancer.
In the 1970s, Dr. Perez II continued his father’s practice in Mexico City and conversed with doctors, scientists, and pharmaceutical companies throughout the world with little success of spreading the word of IPT. He did, however, get the attention of two doctors: Dr. Jean-Claude Paquette from Quebec, Canada and the other was Dr. Stephen G. Ayre, the doctor who coined the phrase “insulin potentiation therapy”.
In 1983, Dr. Perez II was joined by his son, Dr. Donato Perez Garcia (Dr. Perez III) at the family practice. In 1987, the Drs. Perez treated their first AIDS patient with IPT and an antiviral drug. The patient reported a reversal of symptoms and returned to health. In 1988, Dr. Perez III moved part of the family practice to Tijuana, just south of San Diego, to make IPT more available to patients from the U.S.
Cancer cells need glucose to burn for energy. They are almost totally dependent on glucose as their energy source, while other cells can also burn fats. With few exceptions (muscles, brain), all cells require insulin to allow glucose to enter. Since cancer cells are totally dependent on glucose as their only energy source, it turns out they make many more insulin receptors on their membranes. In fact, they may have anywhere from 6 to 15 times the number of insulin receptors as normal cells, giving them a real competitive advantage in swallowing up fuel, but insulin has other effects as well. In addition to insulin opening up the path for glucose to enter, it also makes the cell membrane more permeable to other substances including chemotherapy drugs. Thus, because insulin receptors are so concentrated on cancer cells, cancer can be selectively targeted over normal cells to be more vulnerable to the drugs. More drugs will enter those cells in the presence of insulin. In fact, a study in the early 1980s showed that the chemo drug methotrexate had the ability to kill breast cancer cells magnified 10,000 times when the cells were prepared with insulin. What a potentiation of effectiveness!
Further, insulin has properties that encourage the cancer cells to enter a phase of DNA synthesis and cell division, the vulnerable phase. Thus, preparing the patient with insulin provides a double whammy for the cancer. More drug enters, and in a more vulnerable time in the cell cycle. Thus, a far less quantity of chemo drugs needs to be administered. Hence – little, if any, toxicity.
Amazingly, Dr. Perez was literally curing dreaded tertiary neurosyphilis in the 1930s, prior to modern antibiotics. He found that the blood brain barrier was made more permeable by insulin so that he could get enough of an antisyphilis arsenical drug into the nervous system to cure the patient. Finding insulin potentiated therapies, he moved on to cancer, discovering its effectiveness, with modern science, only after his death, able to explain the real mechanism described above.
Dr. Perez died in the 1970s. Dr. Perez II continued his work until his own death in December 2000. Now the work continues and is taught by the grandson, also bearing the same name. Dr. Perez III tells me of miraculous cures of polio, MS, and many other terrible degenerative diseases by his father. Unfortunately, his father recently died, only days after I met him on the phone, but too late for me to get to meet him personally and pick his brain.Those of us trained in the technique are hopeful that Perez III will be able to decipher the records of his father and disseminate recipes for supportive treatment for these other conditions besides cancer.
Now for some consecutive cases:
D.U., a 62-year old male with lung cancer (I had been treating for six years) was seeing his tumor slowly grow. We embarked on IPT therapy and after the first month, the radiologist called up the clinic in disbelief that the tumor had regressed by 30% after following the patient for the past 6 years and never seeing it shrink. We reduced the frequency of treatment from two to one per week and the progress halted. When we reinstituted two treatments per week, the tumor again regressed with the progress described as “dramatic” by the radiologist. The patient to date has experienced no toxicity.
M.S. is a 59-year-old male with esophageal cancer. The primary mass was excised, leaving metastatic lymph nodes. In the first month of therapy, the metastatic nodes had regressed by 40%, with no toxicity. He is still under treatment.
D.L. is a 55-year-old male with cancer of the bladder. His surgeon wanted to remove the bladder and institute full dose chemo. He chose low dose IPT instead (after cystoscopic excision of the tumor from the inside of the bladder) and also received instillations of ozone into his bladder. A check-up by his urologist two months later revealed no sign of the cancer and the urologist told me, “I am impressed”.
There was no toxicity.
R.R. is a 77-year-old male with lung cancer. This is his third cancer. He was recommended t o receive full dose chemo. Choosing IPT, he did develop slight toxicity with minor hair loss and a slight fall in blood count, yet felt no worse for wear at all. Due to the slight toxicity, we reduced the frequency of treatments to every four to eight weeks and even after two months of no therapy, there has not been any further growth of the tumor.
These are my own consecutive cases. Even if the tumors did not disappear completely, all of these patients have been afforded significantly more time, cancer-symptom free, and virtually free of any toxicity or “side-effects”.
These days, it is not uncommon to hear about a therapy or nutrient that cures cancer. The problem is that few of them really work. I remember when shark cartilage was the new cure for cancer because, after all, sharks don’t get cancer. I work with a group of about 20 different doctors who try treatments like this, and we compare our results to find out what works and what doesn’t. Shark cartilage failed our tests miserably!
While I never recommend that my patients treat their cancer by themselves, there is now an herb I can recommend wholeheartedly that’s safe and can be used at home and in conjunction with doctor-administered therapies. This isn’t just a supplement to help build your immune system. This herb aggressively fights cancer. Just how effective is it? Let me introduce you to Donald, a 47-year-old mechanic who is in great shape. He had a newly diagnosed lymphoma and came to see me just after his oncologist had biopsied the tumor. There was an ugly egg-sized mass on the left side of his head with a gaping hole from the biopsy and an angry redness from inflammation.
I immediately put him on a derivative of this Chinese herb, and he took it for two weeks. At the end of that time, the lump developed a little depression in the center, but the perimeter had grown just slightly. Dejected that it didn’t significantly regress, he elected to stop further use of the product and take a “wait and see” approach. Four weeks later, I received a call from Donald. The tumor was gone! Returning with his wife and a big smile a few days later, I couldn’t believe my eyes. The skin was smooth, no mass was present, and the angry redness was fading fast.
Artemesia is a simple plant that grows in Southeast Asia. I’ve used it for years to treat intestinal parasites. The World Health Organization lauds it as a safe malaria treatment. I discovered the cancer connection when Drs. Henry Lai and Narenda Singh, bio-engineering professors at the University of Washington, reported on the active agent of this Asian herb (artemisinin). Their report said the herb “might provide a safe, non-toxic, and inexpensive alternative for cancer patients.” What I didn’t realize was that artemesia is a close cousin to oxygen therapy. Chinese researchers said the key to its effects was a peroxide linkage (two oxygen atoms hooked together) within the herb’s active molecule.
Remember our old friend hydrogen peroxide? All peroxides share a common feature. In the presence of free iron, they break down to form highly reactive oxygen-based free radicals. Malaria is a parasite (Plasmodium) that infects the iron-rich red blood cell and accumulates iron. While the body avidly shields iron in a bound-up state (hemoglobin, enzymes, etc.), excess iron accumulates in the parasite, and the accumulation allows some iron to spill out of the bound state and become free. When the artemisinin products contact the iron – boom! A huge burst of free radicals is unleashed, virtually blowing up the cell harboring the free iron and destroying the parasite.
Some seven years ago, Dr. Lai, aware of the high accumulation of iron in cancer cells, wondered if this same mechanism might work in cancer cells, wondered if this same mechanism might work in cancer treatment. He and his colleague, Dr. Singh, conducted experiments in laboratory cancer cells documenting a 100% kill rate of breast-cancer cells in just hours. More importantly, it left normal breast cells and white blood cells unscathed.
Then, one year ago, an article appeared in a major cancer journal demonstrating significant artemisinin anticancer activity in a wide variety of laboratory cultured cancer cells. But astonishingly, cancer’s resistance to common chemotherapy drugs shows no such resistance to artemisinin. It does not have the chemical structure a cancer cell requires to develop resistance! (This was reported recently in the International Journal of Oncology 18; 767-773, 2001 by Efferth, et al.)
I started using the herb’s derivatives in my cancer treatment program. Donald, mentioned earlier, was on of my first cases.
At about the same time, I continued to follow a long-term patient, a delightful 47-year-old female with stage-4 breast cancer. Diane was diagnosed only two years before with the promise of “we got it all” at her mastectomy. When shed came to me, she had developed metastases in her spine, which caused her to limp. A cancer-induced fracture in her vertebrae gave her significant pain and prevented her from performing the duties of her job. All the conventional doctors could offer was full-dose chemotherapy at a horrific toll on the quality of her life, but they also confided honestly that there was no hope it would lead to a cure.
She chose alternatives instead, receiving insulin potentiation therapy (IPT), high-dose nutritional therapy, dietary changes, dendritic cell vaccine, multi-step oxygen therapy, and more. All of her symptoms regressed, but the CT showed no change. After a short course of artemisinin derivatives, she reported back to me that physically she couldn’t tell she had ever had cancer. She felt totally well. The CT scan showed regression, but there was no way to tell if the remaining lesion was a tumor or healing scar tissue. Results like this with absolutely no toxicity are simply amazing by any standards, convention or unconventional.
Carol came to see me with an unsightly, massive open, and oozing cancer engulfing what had been her whole left breast. She had been fighting the cancer for two years and, convinced on her own that doing conventional therapy was a death sentence, she explored nearly every option she could. She started an artemesia derivative and sent me photos one month later showing exceptional healing.
I recently had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Hoang of Hanoi, Vietnam, whose family of physicians has been using artemisinin for about 10 years to treat cancer. He reports that 50 to 60 percent of 400 cancer patients have achieved long-term remission utilizing artemisinin together with a comprehensive integrative cancer strategy.
Dr. Singh is currently following many cancer patients. While not reporting remissions or apparent cures, he says all patients are responding and have at least stabilized. He has found no type of cancer unresponsive to Artemisia derivatives in his studies.
Dr. Hoang recommends treatment for two years. Cancer could be like the malaria parasite. If just one cell remains, it can find its way back. Thus, as in malaria, although the parasite is cleared in a few days, prolonged treatment best prevents relapse. And the beauty of this treatment is that it is non-toxic, so you can continue taking it indefinitely with no expected sided effects.
There are three common artemesia derivatives, and one must know the properties of each for best treatment. Artesunate is water soluble and may be the most active and the least toxic, but it has the shortest life within the body. Aremether is oil or lipid soluble and has the longest half-life. It also has the most toxicity (but this is related to rather high dosages, which are unnecessary). Its big advantage is that it can cross the blood-brain barrier to reach cancers in the nervous system. Artemisinin is the active parent compound of the plant. It has an intermediate half-life, is very safe, and also can cross the blood-brain barrier.
The first two are slightly altered semi-synthetic derivatives of artemisinin, the concentrated and purified active agent. Dr. Singh reports that a combination of the forms may be the very best treatment due to these different properties (based on a lab experiment). Thus, he feels the best preparation will contain artemisinin and artemether to provide a dose of 0.5 – 2 mg/Kg of each form once daily before bed (away from an residual iron left in the stomach after the evening meal). Dr. Hoang reports that 500 mg twice daily of oral artemisinin by itself is the dosage he has been using with great success.
The product is best taken on an empty stomach with some natural fat to enhance absorption. Any iron present from residual food may neutralize the peroxides. Mile is one of the few foods with minimal iron. Whole milk, cottage cheese or yogurt have ample fat to enhance absorption. Additionally, I believe simultaneous administration of cod liver oil (for its omega-3 and vitamin D) and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) will assist absorption, while providing therapeutic benefits. To date, with the exception of patients very near death, taking artemisinin or derivatives have stabilized, improved, or remitted every cancer patient I have followed. No one could deny this is nothing short of a miracle!
We are in the infancy of our understanding of how to use artemesia products. The medical literature suggests that oxygenating the system, perhaps with multistep oxygen therapy, might make them more effective. Administration of certain chemotherapy agents (IPT), which kill cells through free radical mechanisms, is another option.
Please note that artemesia herb products are not the same as the concentrated forms of the derivatives I’ve described here. The highest concentration of artemisinin (the active agent) in the raw herb under the best conditions does not even get beyond one half percent. Furthermore, there’s concern by Dr. Singh that unscrupulous dealers will label artemisinin content without performing a proper analysis. Thus, he has tested some products, finding perhaps only 10 to 20% of anticancer activity against cultured cancer cells compared to pure artemisinin. Nutricology (aka Allergy Research Group) distributes a high-grade artemisinin confirmed by independent lab analysis, which I recommend.
But, remember, it is not a singular therapy. It should be used in conjunction with a comprehensive cancer management strategy, together with the help of an integrative medicine physician or an open-minded oncologist. The best news is that you now have more hope than ever that cancer will not take your life. This is the experience of some physicians and should not be considered a treatment or cure for cancer. If it is used it should be under the care of a physician, and in conjunction with a comprehensive cancer management strategy.
Calcium D-Glucarate — A Cancer Preventer?
By Robert Jay Rowen M.D.
If you follow the news, you are no doubt aware of the tremendous harm chemicals are doing to the environment and, more importantly, the negative impact of those chemicals on your health. One major concern is the effect of environmental chemicals on hormone sensitive tissue. Mounting evidence is linking excessive levels of hormones and carcinogenic chemicals to breast, prostate, uterine, and probably ovarian cancers.
Your risk of cancer and other serious illnesses increase in relationship to the accumulation of toxic chemicals and toxic levels of steroid hormones.
Under ideal circumstances the body has a biochemical plan in place to help it to inactivate and eliminate hormones, drugs and other undesirable chemicals. One such plan or pathway is glucuronidation. Glucuronidation is basically a chemical reaction performed by your liver during which a water-soluble substance is combined with a toxin, allowing the toxin to be more easily excreted from the body.
Normally the glucuronidation pathway of elimination works pretty well, unless the body is grossly overloaded with toxins, or unless some other chemical or even parasite or bacteria gets in the way. When this occurs, the body's intricate system of detoxification and elimination is threatened. Consumption of caffeine and processed meats, smoking tobacco, marijuana, even exposure to car-exhaust or pesticides all cause a loss of glucarate which impedes glucuronidation.
However, the good news is that glucuronidation, can be enhanced. Turns out that providing an ample supply of a dietary supplement similar to glucuronic acid called calcium D-glucarate binds the enzyme so that it's unable to free the hormones/toxins being eliminated by the liver.
Calcium D-glucarate is a safe supplement that has no known negative interactions or toxicity, it inhibits the undesirable bacterial enzyme, beta glucuronidase and thus aids our elimination of toxins. Calcium D-glucarate naturally occurs in fruits and vegetables. This may explain the protective effects of vegetables that reduce the risk of cancer. Many of them are abundant sources of D glucarate. They include the cruciferous vegetables cabbage, broccoli, and brussels sprouts.
Other foods that contain it are grapefruit, apples, bean sprouts, and lettuce.
Calcium D-glucarate is relatively inexpensive and is recommended by nutritionists for persons at risk of such cancers. The suggested dose ranges from 200-400 mg per day. If you have had a relatively low exposure to toxins in your life, a low dose may be fine. If you smoke or have lived in a very polluted area you might choose a higher dose, say 500 mg three times a day. I enthusiastically recommend it to my patients, especially female patients who I feel are at elevated risk of breast cancer, men at risk of prostate cancer, or both sexes at risk of colon cancer. The mucosal cells that line the colon may be a hotbed for cancer simply because they are at the end of the line for exposure to a wide variety of poisons being eliminated through the gut. Preventing the uncoupling of a toxin from the eliminating compound also helps protect colon cells from the increased exposure.
Calcium D-glucarate supplements do not take the place of changing your lifestyle to a healthy one But they do offer good support of important detoxification pathways, especially if you've ever been a smoker, a lover of lunchmeats or hot dogs, or of coffee and sodas.
If you are still a smoker, Calcium D-glucarate is a very appropriate supplement for you. It is not a cure for a body loaded with toxins, but it could give your body the support it needs to remain healthier longer.
Calcium D-Glucarate is available at health food stores or online.
The statements contained herein have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration
Reprinted with permission from Dr. Rowen’s newsletter, Second Opinion, AtlantaGeorgia
So if you want to know how to nip cancer in the bud -- before it ever begins -- pay close attention to these 12 lifestyle changes that can VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE your risk of cancer and chronic disease. These are the things that will truly keep you healthy -- in ways that a vaccine could never come close to.
Over 570,000 people are expected to die from cancer in 2005, and according to a report, more than 60 percent of those deaths could have been prevented if Americans adopted healthier lifestyles. The American Cancer Society said that Americans could realistically cut their cancer death rate in half by:
Quitting smoking Exercising more Eating healthier food Getting recommended cancer screenings
In 2005, over 1.3 million Americans will learn they have cancer, and of the expected 570, 280 cancer deaths it's estimated that more than 168,000 of those will be caused by tobacco use and one-third will be related to poor nutrition, physical inactivity, being overweight or obese or other lifestyle factors. That makes up 62 percent of all cancer deaths.
To show how an American could, in reality, reduce their death risk from cancer, one expert pointed out that quitting smoking would eliminate about 50 percent of cancer deaths, while maintaining a healthy body weight and exercising would eliminate another 10 percent.
Another fraction would be reduced by regular cancer screenings, as some cancers, such as breast, colon and prostate cancers, are easily treated if caught early on before they spread. According to researchers, if all women between the ages of 50 and 79 got mammograms every year, breast cancer deaths would go down by nearly 40 percent.
The easiest way to prevent cancer, according to the report, is to stop all use of tobacco. Education, excise taxes on cigarettes and clean air laws have all helped to get the nation's smoking rate down to below 25 percent, however, another major cancer risk, obesity, appears to be harder to slow down.
Experts say making healthy food more easily accessible and increasing physical activity is a step in the right direction to tackling obesity, along with getting schools to remove sodas and other junk foods from their vending machines.
Adult Cancer Risks As adults, there's still much we can do to cut our cancer risk. Here's how we're doing:
More than one in four men and more than one in five women still smoke cigarettes.
Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults are overweight. That includes the 30 percent of us who are obese.
Not quite half of U.S. adults get enough exercise.
Only about one in four U.S. adults eats five or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
American Cancer Society March 31, 2005
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Based on studies of human remains ranging from 5300 B.C. to the mid-19th century, we know that cancer used to be quite rare. Cancer is becoming a far more common problem in our culture. Earlier this year cancer passed heart disease as the leading cause of death in the United States. We are now up to 175 people EVERY HOUR being diagnosed with cancer and another 65 that are actually dying from cancer.
Considering how important this issue is for nearly everyone you know, it might be a good one to forward to your friends and relatives. You can easily do this by using the E-mail to a friend button in the upper right hand section of this page, just under the search box. You can make a larger impact if you write them a personal message in the e-mail as to why they should seriously consider the advice--and why they may want to subscribe to the newsletter.
What innovative medicines, technologies and strategies are suggested by the Cancer Society to slow the spread of cancer by an amazing 62 percent? Doing nothing more than making some simple lifestyle changes.
Eat healthier foods (ideally based on your body's unique metabolic type).
Incorporate more exercise in your daily routine.
Stop smoking today.
Schedule periodic cancer screenings.
The American Cancer Society is as traditional as medical organizations come. It is reassuring that even their conservative researchers now suggest a 62 percent reduction with simple lifestyle changes.
One of the skills my father drilled into me from early childhood was to never settle for second best. For the most part I haven't, and I would encourage you to follow that advice when it comes to cancer prevention. Why would you settle for a meager 62 percent reduction? I believe you can VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE your cancer risk if you follow risk reduction strategies that have not been formally "proven" yet by conservative researchers.
Why do you want to wait another 20 or 30 years for these to be proven and risk falling into the group of 175 Americans that are being diagnosed with cancer every hour? In 25 years another 15 million will die from cancer. I suggest you get with the program now and save you and your family a cancer diagnosis.
So what can you do to virtually eliminate your cancer risk?
There are a number of simple, yet very powerful, steps you can take to radically lower your risk of cancer in the future. Some of the most important ones are as follows:
Control your fasting insulin and leptin levels. This is the end result, and can be easily monitored with the use of simple and relatively inexpensive blood tests. Make certain that you limit your intake of processed foods, grain carbohydrate and sugars as much as possible. Yes, this is even true for whole unprocessed organic grains as they tend to rapidly break down and drive your insulin and leptin levels up, which is the last thing you need to have happening if you are seeking to resolve a cancer.
Get appropriate amounts of animal-based omega-3 fats and make sure you use cod liver oil (but not too much -- see Vitamin D article links below) if you don't have regular access to sun exposure. Normalize your ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats by taking a high-quality krill oil or fish oil and reducing your intake of most processed vegetable oils.
Get regular and appropriate exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.
Normalize your vitamin D levels and vitamin A levels with safe amounts of sunlight exposure and consider careful supplementation when this is not possible. This works primarily by optimizing your vitamin D level. If you have regular access to sun exposure then you should use fish oil, not cod liver oil, as your primary source of omega-3 fats. Ideally, it would be best to monitor your vitamin D levels. If you take oral vitamin D and have a cancer it would be very prudent to monitor your vitamin D blood levels regularly. Ideally, it would be best for all people to monitor their vitamin D levels.
Only 25 percent of people eat enough vegetables, so by all means eat as many vegetables as your metabolic type allows. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. However, please understand that, frequently, fresh conventionally grown vegetables are healthier than organic ones that are older and wilted in the grocery store. They are certainly better than no vegetables at all, so please don't use that as an excuse. If you are a carb metabolic type, you may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than a protein metabolic type.
Eat according to your metabolic type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
Make sure you are not in the two-thirds of the population who are overweight and maintain an ideal body weight.
Limit your exposure and provide protection for yourself from information carrying radio waves produced by cell phone towers, base stations, phones and WiFi stations.
Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
Have a tool to permanently reprogram the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. Energy psychology seems to be one of the best approaches and my particular favorite tool, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique. German New Medicine is another powerful tool.
Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them.
Get a good night's sleep.
Consume flax seeds (organic only) that have been freshly ground in a coffee grinder. The water soluble fibers (lignans) are a simple nutritious solution to decrease the risk of breast cancer and nicely complement your omega-3 fats.
Breast massage and not wearing a bra to bed. Avoid push-up, strapless and tight-fitting bras that leave marks. (See "Cancer-Breast" page on this site)
Use broccoli sprouts as an adjunct to everything above.
Eating sprouts is not the only course of action I recommend for preventing or treating breast and prostate cancer. Here are a few other guidelines:
Lower iron levels by donating blood. Excess iron can be a major cause of many cancers. (IP6 and Artemisinin work by targeting the large amounts of iron in cancer cells).
The bottom line: Eat nutritious (for your metabolic type) meals and get plenty of exercise if you want to reduce your risk of breast cancer.
For starters, following the plan detailed in my Total Health Program will optimize your weight and familiarize you with the foods that ward off diseases.
Additional guidelines to reduce breast cancer risks:
Avoid sugar and grains Eat broccoli and broccoli sprouts. The sprouts are loaded with chemicals like indole-3 carbinol which is another effective way to speed up estrogen metabolism. If your schedule does not allow you to grow the sprouts you can purchase them or actually go to the health food store and purchase supplements like indole-3 carbinol. The major preference though is to use the whole food like the broccoli sprouts. In the near future I will be reviewing effective automated solutions for sprouting.
Normalize your omega-3 and omega-6 fat ratios with fish oil
Get plenty of exercise
One of the newest things that I have learned to lower the risk of breast cancer is that you can improve the ability of your body to metabolize estrogen. It is well documented that excessive estrogen will increase the risk of breast cancer. One can actually measure the ratio of estrogen metabolites to determine how effectively a person is able to remove estrogen from their system. However, if the estrogen metabolite ratio is compromised there are several effective nutritional solutions to improve it.
Cancer is now the leading cause of death among teens and young adults after accidents in England. Among this 13 to 24-year-old age group, cancer rates have been increasing at a rate of 1.2 percent per year for the past two decades. The researchers mention genetic factors, lifestyle changes and exposure to toxins before birth as possible causes for the increase, but there are many more possibilities for the steady increase.
Most human research in cancer risk from exposure to toxins begins after the cancer is diagnosed. However, as chemicals and other toxins are increasingly saturating our environment, researchers are beginning to look at the effect of these environmental toxins, such as pesticides and PCBs, on an unborn child.
For instance, several human studies have found a link between fetal exposure to contaminants and cancer in children and young adults. Studies reviewed include occupational exposures of parents and brain cancers in children; pesticides, paints, paint thinners and solvents and leukemia; and cigarette smoke and childhood cancer.
An embryo and fetus develop at a much faster rate than adults. While this development occurs, cell division and growth is rapid. These rapid changes provide many opportunities for mistakes to occur. If a baby is exposed to several toxic compounds in utero, changes may occur that either directly cause cancer, or lengthen the period of sensitivity to carcinogens, therefore making the child more susceptible to cancer later in life.
The polio vaccine seems ever more linked to cancers, especially in children. The evidence seems quite clear yet most continue to go down the path of blindly trusting the traditional paradigm to "save" them from disease through the use of vaccinations.
This should outrage nearly anyone that reads this. We trusted these experts to provide us with protection from polio and instead they planted the seeds of a deadly cancer that would kill over 20,000 a year in the United States.
This is particularly troublesome as polio can be prevented in most people simply by eliminating sugar from their diet.
If you were one of those people who received the vaccine you can do something positive to enhance your immune system. Increasing your amount of omega-3 fats and decreasing the omega-6 fats will be a potent step toward suppressing these types of cancers. Consuming high-quality fish oil or cod liver oil is an excellent way to obtain the outstanding health benefits of omega-3.
Inadequate Prenatal Nutrition
What a woman eats while pregnant can have a profound effect on the future health of her child. Researchers have discovered that a mother’s diet can even alter her child’s gene functions without changing the DNA sequence, which plays a large role in the child’s susceptibility to diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes, schizophrenia and others.
I am convinced that the single most important dietary influence for prenatal nutrition is adequate omega-3 fats. As I mentioned above, the ideal way to obtain them is through fish oil or cod liver oil. Optimizing your omega-3 fats will virtually guarantee that the baby is full term as well.
Pressure-Treated Wooden Playground Equipment
Some 90 percent of all outdoor wooden structures in the United States are made with pressure-treated wood. The preservative used to treat the wood contains arsenic--a known human carcinogen--that rubs off when the wood is touched.
Children tend to put their hands in their mouth about 16 times an hour while playing, and those who have arsenic on their hands are at an increased risk of developing lung and bladder cancer.
Some woods like redwood and cedar do not require this arsenic-containing preservative and are therefore not a concern. Plastic and metal equipment should pose no risk.
Electricity Power Lines
Children who live near electricity power lines are at an increased risk of developing leukemia. One theory to why this occurs is that the high voltage lines emit charged particles called ions, which may then be inhaled.
CT scans are high in potentially dangerous radiation, and pose a significant threat to children. CT scans, and traditional X-rays, have been associated with cancer and heart disease. I recommend you avoid CT scans unless your or your child's life depends upon it. MRIs are typically safer than CT scans.
Upwards of six hours of strenuous activity each week could reduce the risks of invasive breast cancer by as much as 23 percent. A recent survey of over 15,000 women shows that exercise has a lifelong protective effect against invasive breast cancer.
The survey was of women between the ages of 20 and 69 living in Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. During structured telephone interviews, researchers questioned almost 8,000 women without breast cancer, more than 1,500 survivors of non-invasive breast cancer, and more than 6,000 survivors of invasive breast cancer.
The women were asked about their physical activity, occupation, family history of breast cancer, menopausal status, and body mass index.
A reduction in risk for women who exercised was apparent whether the physical activity took place early in life, in the postmenopausal years, or in the recent past.
Sources: Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention February 1, 2007; 16(2): 236-243 EurekAlert February 15, 2007
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Many don't realize my initial intention when I went to medical school was to help people use exercise to stay healthy. Virtually no one disagrees that it is essential to achieving health and treating illness. However, I have noticed that many physicians tend not to advocate exercise as much as they could.
I suspect this is likely related in most cases to them personally not adopting exercise in their own life so it would be "hypocritical" of them to advise their patients to exercise when they aren't. This is certainly not true of all physicians but it is for a great many of them.
This is a major pity. I really do believe one of the requirements for medical school should be personal disciplines that help the physicians achieve high levels of health and wellness so they can model it to their patients. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case nor will it likely happen in the near future.
In the meantime you can "Take Control of Your Health" by understanding how you can use exercise to improve and optimize your own health.
One of them is realizing that the most common cause of death for you and for nearly everyone reading this is actually cancer. So what can you do to prevent cancer?
Not only does it treat and prevent heart disease but it is equally as effective in cancer -- most likely for similar reasons, improvement of insulin levels.
Last night I learned that my brother-in-law, who is several years younger than me, had a heart attack and will be having bypass surgery. Even though I helped him stop smoking 20 years ago and he stopped his six cans of soda a day about 10 years ago there were many other elements of a healthy lifestyle he did not embrace.
One of the things he had not embraced in his lifestyle changes was exercise. Not only would exercise have dramatically lowered his risk of a heart attack, it would have also radically lowered his cancer risk. This is a "hidden" benefit of exercise that most people are not at all aware of.
Interestingly, both diseases are likely affected by the same mechanism, lowering insulin and leptin levels.
Probably the most important aspect about using exercise to optimize your health: You must treat it like a drug, meaning it must be prescribed precisely to do the most for your body. There's no truer evidence than this recent study about exercise and its protective effect on invasive breast cancer. At least six hours of strenuous exercise every week -- a prescription for health -- cut a woman's risks of invasive breast cancer by 23 percent.
Most importantly, a woman can receive the very same protection exercise affords her against breast cancer at any stage in her life, meaning it's never too late to start. If you need some help, you'll want to review my beginner's exercise page today.
Please remember, though, that while exercise is a vital component of optimal health, restricting your health plan to exercise exclusively is a prescription for disaster. The evidence for this assertion becomes apparent when you examine elite endurance athletes who develop cancer. You can learn more about virtually eliminating your cancer risks by reviewing my major recommendations.
On Vital Votes, Lifestyle and Nutrition Coach Josh Rubin from San Marcos, California adds:
"I agree 100% that exercise is one piece to the healing and prevention puzzle. I have found as well that most of my clients that have breast cancer in their family, are worried or get it, are estrogen dominant. This can mean high levels, but as well normal levels of estrogens. Estrogen dominance means that one has low levels of progesterone in order to oppose estrogen.
"Estrogen caused cell proliferation and cell growth. Estrogen dominance in this day and age in my opinion comes from many places, but the most common are:
"1. Plastic water bottles and containers contain xenoestrogens.
"2. Stress causes the body to steal pregnenolone (precursor to progesterone) from the metabolic pathways in order to keep up with the production of cortisol. This leads to adrenal issues and low progesterone levels.
"3. Most hygiene products, perfumes, etc will cause estrogen levels to increase, as well as make a women's hormones go haywire.
"4. The pill causes most women's hormones to go haywire. Most have synthetic estrogens in them, which cause adrenal stress, as well as add to estrogen dominance.
"5. Soy, and this is a whole discussion topic in itself."
Broccoli (Sprouts or Extract) May Halt Growth of Breast, Prostate & Colon Cancer Cells http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/05/24/broccoli-cancer-part-three.aspx From every way that I look at it I3C sure seems vastly superior to the drug Tamoxifen to treat breast cancer. It also is likely to be very beneficial in the treatment of prostate cancer since the two diseases have very similar contributing factors. However does that mean you should absolutely rush out and purchase supplements of I3C?
My strong recommendation would be to get the entire family of beneficial nutrients. One way to do this would be to eat broccoli but the best way is to consume broccoli sprouts, which are hundreds of times more potent than regular broccoli.
I first wrote about this in 1997 when I posted information on using broccoli sprouts. They are an inexpensive and more effective cancer-treating alternative to eating the whole vegetable. You can purchase organic broccoli seeds from Johnny's at (207) 861-3901. Reference item #148, four ounces are $9, or one pound is $26.15. For sprouting instructions call Jaffe Brothers at (619) 749-1133. Your local library or health food store may also have some instructions on sprouting seeds.
Dr. Mercola's Comment: At the present time, broccoli sprouts are not being grown commercially. However you can grow them yourself quite easily. You can purchase organic brocolli seeds from Johnny's at 207-437-4301. Item number 148, four onces are $9.00 or a pound for $26.15. Non-organic seeds can probably be purchased through farm supply stores or other seed catalogs. You can also call Jaffe Brothers at 619-749-1133 for instructions on how to sprout. They also sell sprouting lids to apply to Ball jars which make the entire process quite convenient. The library or health food store may also have some instructions on sprouting seeds.
A small amount of spouts go a long way. A pound of sprouts will probably make over ten pounds of sprouts which from the researchers calculations translates up to as much cancer protecting phytochemicals as 1000 pounds (half a ton) of broccoli! The other major benefit is that the sprouts don't smell as you don't have to cook them. They are eaten raw, usually as an addition to salad. I have already ordered my sprouts. I suspect that there are similar benefits for many of the other vegetables when eaten as sprouts.
Dana Reeve, the widow of Christopher Reeve, has been diagnosed with lung cancer. But she doesn't fit the typical profile of a lung cancer patient; she is 20 to 30 years younger than most who get the disease, and she has never smoked.
The number of nonsmokers with lung cancer is growing, especially among women. Right now, 10 percent of men with lung cancer have never smoked, but 20 percent of women who have the illness are nonsmokers.
Possible causes may include:
Greater susceptibility to carcinogens Secondhand smoke Radon gas Genetic predisposition Lung cancer kills about 15,000 non-smoking women each year, and the disease remains as deadly now as it did 30 years ago. Only about 15 percent of lung cancer patients survive as long as five years,
Source: USA Today August 9, 2005
Dr. Mercola's Comments: Way Healthier Air Purifiers duplicate Nature's own methods by creating ultraviolet lightrays and hydroxyl radicals to oxidize organic odors, germs and fungi -- the most effective and safe method to clean and revitalize your indoor air. Way Healthier uses exclusive technology you won't find in any other air purifier to:
Eliminate Allergens So You Can Breathe Easier Destroy ALL Unwanted Pollutants Sanitize Surfaces and The Air You Breathe Energy Efficient for Round the Clock Use Save You Money -- No Filters To Replace! Truly Silent Operation Purify Even a Large Room Easily (up to 750 square feet!) Learn More About Way Healthier Air Purifiers
Coming on the tail of Peter Jenning's and her husband's recent death, this was really a sad news note. My guess is that the emotional loss of Dana's husband was a factor here. In Chinese medicine, sadness and grief are associated with the lungs, and I suspect that was a factor in her development of lung cancer.
Unfortunatley, cancer is now the leading killer in the United States. An astonishing 175 people are diagnosed with cancer in America every hour. And as the toxins in your environment and your diet continue to increase, you're probably going to see more and more cancers in those who do not seem to be in traditional "at-risk" groups--such as lung cancer in nonsmokers.
If you are a smoker, your habit doesn't just affect yourself. Second-hand smoke accounts for as many as one-quarter of cases of lung cancer in non-smokers.
If you smoke around your children, they are not only at a higher risk for lung cancer, but also are more likely to get asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, and other lung diseases. Smoking endangers lives other than your own, and I urge you to stop not only for your own health but for the health of your loved ones.
But even if you are not a smoker, and don't live with one, you are not completely safe. There are, however, steps you can take to greatly reduce your cancer risk. Let me take this opportunity to remind you of my 11-step checklist for cancer risk reduction:
1. Control your insulin levels.
2. Get appropriate amounts of exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.
3. Normalize your vitamin D levels with safe amounts of sun exposure.
4. Get appropriate amounts of animal-based omega-3 fats, and make sure you use cod liver oil if you don't have regular access to sun exposure.
5. Eat according to your metabolic type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic, this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have. (See "Metabolic Type" page on this site)
6. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by your emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. Energy psychology seems to be one of the best approaches and my particular favorite tool, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique.
7. Only 25 percent of people eat enough vegetables, so by all means eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. However, please understand that, frequently, fresh conventionally grown vegetables are healthier than organic ones that are older and wilted in the grocery store. If nothing less, they are certainly better than no vegetables at all. If you are a carb metabolic type you may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than a protein metabolic type.
8. Make sure you are not in the two-thirds of the population who are overweight. Maintain an ideal body weight.
9. Get enough high-quality sleep.
10. Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, electric air fresheners, and air pollution.
11. Boil, poach, or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them.
How Does Resveratrol Help Control Cancer Development?
Because it is an antioxidant, it has the ability to clear dangerous cancer-inducing radicals from the body
Its anti-inflammatory properties prevent certain enzymes from forming that trigger tumor development
It cuts down cell reproduction, which helps reduce the number of cell divisions that could contribute to the progression of cancer cell growth
May play a similar role to estrogen by its ability to reduce testosterone levels, which promote the cancer growth
The study involved interviewing two groups of men: 753 recently diagnosed prostate cancer patients and 703 healthy patients, who acted as the control group. The goal of the study was to evaluate the possible benefits of drinking red wine. The participant's ages ranged from 40-64, with the majority under the age of 60.
This youthful range was considered one of the strong aspects of the study due to the fact the risks of prostate cancer are lower in younger age groups. This factor also allowed researchers to hone in on specific environmental factors of cancer risk such as wine consumption.
Future studies are being planned to further research the relationship between resveratrol and prostate cancer.
Science Blog September 22, 2004
Dr. Mercola's Comments: In an earlier study it was reported that antioxidants weren't as effective as green and black tea in slowing down the progression of prostate cancer. Knowing the benefits of resveratrol, these findings surprised me.
It now seems my suspicions were confirmed with research that found drinking a glass of red wine a day may cut a man's risk of prostate cancer in half. Moreover, the protective effect appears to be strongest against the most aggressive forms of the disease.
Resveratrol should be added to the list of tools to fight prostate cancer. These include:
While red wine is shown to provide some great health benefits, I do not advocate drinking red wine at all as I am convinced that the alcohol itself is actually a poison and will unbalance your hormones. I am looking into using grape pomace. Grape pomace, a by-product of winemaking and is loaded with resveratrol and many other polyphenolic bioflavanoids and antioxidants. To the best of my knowledge it is not commercially available.
If you insist on drinking red wine you also need to check on the growing conditions of the grapes and how the wine is made. If the wine isn't made with organic grapes, it may contain no resveratrol at all. You also need to be aware that consuming large amounts of wine or grapes, which have a lower concentration of antioxidants than wine, will increase insulin levels and eventually have a negative impact on your health. It may be beneficial to consume whole grape skins and pass up the meat of the grape, which has no resveratrol but a lot of extra fructose.
Each year, about 1.6 million children in the USA get CT scans to the head and abdomen - and about 1,500 of those will die later in life of radiation-induced cancer.
What's more, CT or computed tomography scans given to kids are typically calibrated for adults, so children absorb two to six times the radiation needed to produce clear images. Radiologists could turn down the X-rays without losing quality, and thus expose the children to less potentially cancer-causing radiation.
These doses are much larger than the sorts of doses that people at Three Mile Island were getting. Most people there got a tenth or a hundredth of the dose of a CT.
Doctors use CT scans on children to search for cancers and ailments such as appendicitis and kidney stones. There's a huge number of people who don't just receive one scan.
About 11% of the CT scans at his center are done in children under 15, and they get 70% of the total radiation dose given to patients. Children have more rapidly dividing cells than adults, which are more susceptible to radiation damage. Children also will live long enough for cancers to develop.
The breast dose from a CT scan of the chest is somewhere between 10 and 20 mammograms. You'd want to think long and hard about giving your young daughter 10 to 20 mammograms unless she really needs it.
CT scans are used in about 4% of medical X-ray examinations, but it contributes to an estimated 40% of the total radiation dose to the population.
American Journal of Roentgenology 2001:176;303-306
Dr. Mercola's Comments: I always knew CT scans were high in radiation but I was completely unaware of the enormous danger this scan poses to children. I suspect many of you are also similarly unaware. This is a hugely important study and the message is quite clear.
Avoid CT scans unless you or your child's life depends upon it. Frequently an MRI imaging study can achieve similar results. MRIs are far safer than CT scans, they should also be used with caution, but, to the best of my knowledge, are not associated with an increased cancer rate.
If you live in a reasonably large American city, you've no doubt heard the commercials.
Forty-two-year-old Henry is putting on a clown costume, getting ready for his son's 5th birthday party, and counting his blessings. He knows just how lucky he is to be doing the Bozo thing instead of pushing up daisies. And if it hadn't been for the Ultrafast CT scan, pushing up daisies is exactly where Henry would be. "And to think," he muses, attaching his large red nose, "on the day before I had my convenient and painless [insert brand name here] heart scan that showed I was about to have a massive heart attack, my doctor had given me a clean bill of health. Thanks to [insert brand name here], I was able to get treatment in time."
Then the announcer comes on and says, "And how do you feel? Are you sure? Like Henry here, you could be sitting on a silent time bomb, and your next breath may be your last. So maybe you should schedule a [insert brand name here] Ultrafast CT scan, and like Henry, spend your child's next birthday at Chucky Cheese's instead of Forest Lawn. Call today." Then the announcer gives the address and number of - not an obscure office in a failing strip mall - but a highly respected local hospital.
What gives here? Is the Ultrafast CT scan some sort of fringe medical procedure, as suggested by the cheesy commercials featuring heart rending vignettes, or is it a legitimate and valuable diagnostic tool, as suggested by its university hospital venue?
As it turns out, the cardiology community has been just as schizophrenic about Ultrafast CT scans as have been the commercials. While many cardiologists swear by them, many others consider them a waste of time and money, and a grave risk to the credibility of the profession.
In this article, we will examine, as dispassionately as possible, the Ultrafast CT scan. We'll consider whether it is merely another heart test, or whether it really is a uniquely valuable tool that predicts dangerous cardiac events before they occur. And we will try to answer the question: should you have one?
What is the Ultrafast CT scan?
CT scans have been in wide clinical use for more than 25 years. CT scans arose when standard x-rays met the power of the computer. X-ray images were computer-processed to give pictures of a quality scarcely imagined before the 1970's. Since their advent, CT scans have become a gold standard for imaging many of the body's internal organs.
But CT scans have never been particularly useful for imaging the heart. This is for one simple reason: the heart moves. Since CT scanners take several minutes to acquire the image, anything that moves during this time becomes blurred. And the coronary arteries, riding as they do on the surface of the heart muscle, are invariably blurred into oblivion.
Imagine trying to photograph a man running on a treadmill with a camera that requires an exposure time of 10 minutes, and imagine that your assignment is to use the photograph to document whether he's wearing Nikes or Reeboks. While the picture you take may show a fairly clear image of the torso of the runner (since its movement is relatively limited), the man's arms, legs, and especially his feet, would come out a hopeless blur.
But now suppose you could somehow rig up your camera so that it would repeatedly expose the film, but only during the brief moments that the runner's right foot was just beginning to touch the surface of the treadmill. The camera, it might be said, would be "gated" so that only one brief portion of the "running cycle" would be caught on film. The resultant image would very likely show the right foot in a fair amount of detail, since it would be in nearly the same position each time the film was exposed. And detecting either the Nike or Reebok logo would be a cinch.
This is how the Ultrafast CT scan works. The CT camera uses the patient's ECG to "gate" the CT exposure, so that the heart is imaged only during a particular moment within the "cardiac cycle," when it is always in nearly the same position. Gating the CT scan reduces and almost eliminates the blurring produced by cardiac motion. And now, suddenly, the coronary arteries can be seen with much higher resolution than with a standard CT scan.
With current technology, even gating the image does not render the coronary arteries visible nearly to the extent of, say, a cardiac catheterization. The Ultrafast CT scan does not tell us directly, therefore, whether there are significant blockages in the coronary arteries. What it does tell us, with a high degree of accuracy, is whether the coronary arteries contain deposits of calcium.
Calcium, for all practical purposes, does not occur in normal coronary arteries. Calcium deposits are a strong marker for the presence of atherosclerosis, i.e., coronary artery plaques, the lesions that cause narrowing of the coronary arteries, and ultimately lead to heart attacks. If there is calcium in the coronary arteries, then, you can be pretty sure there is also atherosclerosis. Further testing - usually by means of a cardiac catheterization - might then be indicated to measure the extent of the disease, and to decide on the best way to treat it.
So it all makes perfect sense. Use the Ultrafast CT scan as a completely safe, painless, and non-invasive screening test to check for the presence of coronary artery calcification. If it's present, then you know there's at least some degree of coronary artery disease, and more invasive procedures can be elected. What could be simpler?
Why it's not that simple
For one reason, nothing is ever that simple.
For another, the presence of at least some coronary artery calcification in Americans over the age of 25 or 30 is so frequent that the mere presence or absence of calcification on the Ultrafast CT is not a valuable screening tool. (If you were going by the mere presence of coronary artery calcium, you might as well skip the Ultrafast CT and just catheterize everybody.)
This means that there has to be a method of scoring the coronary artery calcium. And here's where it gets tricky.
Whatever scoring system you may devise, the point would be to identify a "cutoff" score above which significant blockages in the coronary arteries are quite likely, and below which significant blockages are quite unlikely. Then you could send for catheterization those patients whose scores are above the cutoff.
As it turns out, this generic problem is a very common one in medicine, one that has been solved hundreds of times. Whenever you are measuring something that yields a range of values - like serum glucose, for instance, or cholesterol levels - you have to determine a "normal" range and an "abnormal" range. To solve this problem, you simply measure the values in people who are normal and in people who have the disease state the measurement is meant to detect. Many times, a "cutoff" value will quickly suggest itself.
That method, of course, has been tried with the Ultrafast CT scan. Patients who were having heart catheterizations anyway were given the Ultrafast CT scan as well, and the results of the catheterization were compared to the results of the Ultrafast CT. And as it turned out, patients who had lots of calcium tended to have a lot of coronary artery disease, while patients without a lot of calcium tended to have much less coronary artery disease. And that was very good.
The problem came when researchers tried to come up with a cutoff calcium score that effectively separated patients with significant coronary artery disease from patients with no significant disease. It turned out that no cutoff can do that cleanly. A few patients with very little in the way of calcium have significant blockages in their coronary arteries. (These patients are said to have "false negative" Ultrafast CT scans).
But more importantly, many patients with a lot of calcium on the Ultrafast CT turn out to have very little in the way of coronary artery blockages. (These patients have "false positive" Ultrafast CT scans.) So when researchers select the cutoff point that is supposed to separate those with significant blockages from those without significant blockages, they have no choice but to decide whether to err on the side of false positives, or false negatives. Because no matter what value they choose, they're going to wind up with a lot of one or a lot of the other (or, if they make a particularly bad choice, with a lot of both.)
Since the Ultrafast CT is a test designed to screen for coronary artery disease, it would not be very useful if a lot of patients with significant blockages were missed. Doctors obviously want the test to be highly sensitive in picking out nearly all patients with significant blockages. This means that the cutoff values that are generally used with the Ultrafast CT have been chosen to err on the side of false positives. (Again, this means that patients receiving a "good" result are very unlikely to have significant coronary artery disease, while those who receive a "bad" result may or may not have significant disease.)
So if we elect to use the Ultrafast CT scan as a screening procedure, we therefore accept - by definition - the fact that many patients with "bad" calcium scores will turn out to have no significant blockages in their coronary arteries. There's nothing inherently wrong with using the Ultrafast CT as a screening tool, in other words, as long as we accept this proviso.
So Why All The Passion?
There are a lot of equivocal screening tests used in cardiology, but none but the Ultrafast CT scan have engendered TV and radio commercials imploring the public not to miss the opportunity to be screened. And few save the Ultrafast CT have caused legions of opposing cardiologists to hasten to the airwaves to publicly deplore their use, or professional societies to rush "position papers" into print in an attempt to adjudicate the differences in opinion before the two sides come to blows.
To understand why the Ultrafast CT scan - of all cardiac screening tests - is so controversial, one simply has to (to coin a phrase) follow the money.
It costs about $2 million to buy the machine that does Ultrafast CT scans. Especially in today's health care environment, with hospitals and HMOs going bankrupt every day, that's a lot of money. Furthermore, most insurance companies, after reviewing the available data on Ultrafast CT scans (and noting the high proportion of false positive tests), have elected not to pay for the test. As a consequence, most hospitals have quite reasonably elected not to spend a huge wad of money to buy a device that performs (yet another) non-invasive cardiac screening test, one that is, to boot, non-reimbursable.
But look what the hospitals that have purchased Ultrafast CT scanners have figured out: If you buy it (and invest in the appropriate advertising,) They Will Come. And furthermore, if you position it effectively (and nobody wants to miss their kid's birthday,) They Will Pay Cash.
Think of it. Payment in advance, major cards accepted. No paperwork. No pre-certification. No wrangling 8 - 12 months to collect an average of 45% of the amount billed. The best thing that ever happened, many hospitals are finding, was when insurance companies refused to pay for the test. Suddenly, the Ultrafast CT scanner was no longer bogged down within the traditional health care system; suddenly, it was in the wonderful, wild free market.
There's more. There's a Dirty Little Secret in cardiology that has to do with non-invasive tests. Every time a new non-invasive heart test is invented, it is hailed as bringing us one step closer to the day when invasive tests will no longer be necessary. And yet, as time goes by and the new non-invasive test comes into common use, more and more invasive tests end up being performed. This is not a mysterious or inexplicable result. It is entirely predictable.
And that's the Dirty Little Secret. To wit: every new non-invasive test creates a brand new category of "false positive" results that need to be followed up by performing an invasive test. Therefore, each time a new non-invasive test comes into use, the need to perform invasive procedures increases.
For Ultrafast CT scans, this truism applies in spades, because, as we have seen, a cutoff calcium score has been selected that guarantees a significant proportion of falsely positive tests.
So cardiologists lucky enough to work in hospitals that were "early adopters" of Ultrafast CT scanners, and that advertised them sufficiently, found that their catheterization volume increased significantly. They learned to like the Ultrafast CT scan very much, and found themselves willing to appear in commercials promoting this effective screening tool. Cardiologists in neighboring hospitals, feeling the impact of paying customers being siphoned off by (and being catheterized at) rival institutions, tended to react rather passionately and publicly themselves, but in the opposite direction.
The next thing you know, you've got a controversy on your hands.
Beyond the passion
Early adopters of the Ultrafast CT scan, by blitzing the airwaves with commercials of dubious taste, tended to poison the waters for a sober, scientific assessment of the efficacy of this test as a screening tool. But as time has gone by, the publication of several scientific studies has tended to bring the discussions regarding the usefulness of the Ultrafast CT to a somewhat higher plane.
In summary, these studies have shown what one might expect: the Ultrafast CT scan is effective in identifying individuals who are likely to have significant coronary artery disease. And while it is often stressed that a "normal" Ultrafast CT scan does not rule out the possibility of coronary artery disease (and so people with good Ultrafast CT results should not take up smoking, eating, drinking, and being merry), by far the bigger "problem" is that almost half the patients with a positive scan turn out not to have significant coronary artery blockages.
Some have said that this latter problem is a blessing in disguise, since the presence of calcium on the coronary arteries is a powerful motivator for patients to adopt healthier lifestyles. The calcium means, after all, that they really do have coronary artery disease - it just hasn't progressed enough to cause serious problems - yet.
Furthermore, slow but steady progress is being made in deciphering which populations of patients may benefit the most from Ultrafast CT scans. Not surprisingly, it is the patients who have either symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease, or important risk factors for the disease, who seem to be the best groups to test. These patients tend to have a high probability of having coronary disease even before the test. This means that a positive Ultrafast CT scan is much more likely to be truly positive in these patients than in a lower risk population.
In any case, over the past year or two, because discussions within the cardiology community over the Ultrafast CT scan have come to be based more on data and less on feelings, those discussions have become much less polarized, and much more objective.
On July 1, 2000, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology released an updated "expert consensus" on the Ultrafast CT scan. The authors of this report included both strong proponents of the Ultrafast CT scan, and skeptics. The authors reviewed all the available published studies, and concluded the following (note that in this statement the Ultrafast CT scan is referred to as the electron beam CT scan, or the EBCT):
"Although preliminary data are intriguing with respect to risk prediction in the asymptomatic patient, available data are insufficient to support recommending EBCT to asymptomatic members of the general public or for routine clinical use. Further studies are enthusiastically recommended for determining the additive predictive effect of the calcium score in patients with intermediate risk, particularly in the elderly. The use of EBCT in selected asymptomatic patients can be justified when performed in the context of a medical assessment only after the more standard cardiac risk assessment is considered insufficient by the physician to direct further therapy plans."
In other words, the joint statement concluded that routine use of the Ultrafast CT for screening members of the general public who do not have symptoms of coronary artery disease cannot yet be justified by the available data. The bone that was thrown to proponents of the Ultrafast CT scan was an "enthusiastic recommendation" for further study. While not really satisfying to anybody, such a statement is felt to be a step forward from the fervent endorsements and the angry denunciations of a few years ago. We still do not know exactly what to do with Ultrafast CT scans, but at least we can be collegial about it.
So should you have a Ultrafast CT scan?
As with every medical decision, it depends.
The easiest answer would be to simply endorse the expert consensus of the AHA and ACC (which, in fact, I agree with in all its particulars), and say no, don't get one until better data is available. But that would leave you watching all those commercials featuring Henry, and wondering, after all, wouldn't it be ok to get yourself checked?
And while we're all waiting for more data, heart disease is still the number one killer in the U.S., and while many victims have plenty of warning and plenty of opportunity for early medical intervention, the fact remains that for a substantial minority of individuals (several hundred thousand a year), sudden death is the very first sign that anything is wrong. So it is very reasonable for Americans to wonder about the state of their coronary arteries, even if they're feeling entirely well.
It is surely logical to consider having a test, one you can schedule and pay for yourself, that is very good at detecting the presence of coronary artery disease - even if that test can't tell you the severity of the disease.
It's just that, if you decide to have the Ultrafast CT scan, you had better understand its drawbacks as well as its advantages. Its major advantages are that, if the test is negative, the probability that you have significant coronary artery disease is very small; and that if you do have significant coronary artery disease, the Ultrafast CT will very likely be positive.
Its major disadvantage is that even if you do not have significant coronary disease, the test is also reasonably likely to be positive. And that means you may receive a heart catheterization you don't really need. Whether that is a minor inconvenience or a very bad thing depends almost entirely on your feelings as an individual. (I'm not taking insurance companies into account here. They would, I suspect, always consider it a very bad thing to have to pay for catheterizations that were not necessary.)
If used appropriately, in individuals who are motivated to know with a high degree of certainty the state of their coronary arteries, and who are willing to pay the price of a potentially unnecessary catheterization to get that information, the Ultrafast CT can be very useful and very gratifying.
So the Ultrafast CT scan may be for you, but don't decide by listening to cheesy commercials or to panicked naysayers. Decide by considering: with how much certainty do you need to know about your coronary arteries? If you have a lot of risk factors, you would be quite justified in wanting to pursue the answer vigorously. On the other hand, if you are a young person with few risk factors, in whom a "positive" test is particularly likely to be a "false positive," the Ultrafast CT scan would make far less sense.
Either way, since many doctors are still not being very objective on this matter, it would be to your benefit to keep yourself on an even keel, to consider all the available information objectively and dispassionately, and to make your own decision.
Commercials for the Ultrafast CT scan are not limited to TV and radio. Here are a few sites that are essentially advertisements for the Ultrafast CT. Esthetics on these sites vary from the tasteful to the garish.
Imatron's site Another commercial site, less garish, with on-line images of Ultrafast CT scans
Article from Better Homes and Gardens Another form of advertising is to disguise the ad as journalism
Heartinfo.com on Ultrafast CT scanning You have to look carefully to see that this apparently scholarly and objective on-line piece actually comes from Imatron, Inc. Every claim stated as fact on this page is in dispute (see the AHA/ACC statement, below).
Here are some links that present data on the Ultrafast CT scan somewhat more objectively.
The ACC/AHA Consensus Statement The summation of the latest expert consensus on Ultrafast CT scanning, from July, 2000
Originally published on About.com's Heart Disease Website - 8/15/2000
Dr. Mercola's Comments: When the test first came out about ten years ago I did recommend them, but my experience quickly diminished my enthusiasm for the test. What I learned is that the test has an unacceptable high false positive rate. In simpler terms, if someone has a positive test, there is a large, and in my book unacceptable, likelihood that it will in fact not really be reflective of blockage in the coronary arteries.
As the article states, I believe in most cases the procedure is promoted as a money making gimmick that actually increased invasive procedure referrals. Think about it, what does the typical patient do when he has a positive test. The next step would be to go their doctor who will likely refer them for a thallium or echocardiogram stress test that may or may not lead to an angiogram and possible angioplasty or bypass.
A huge scam all the way around in the vast majority of instances. There are so many better tests that are better screens for heart disease and they are far less expensive (such as hdl/chol ratio, ferritin, Lp(a), homocysteine, glucose tolerance, etc).
But the key here is that even if the test were good, and it always provided accurate results, the therapeutic recommendations of traditional medicine for this problem are absolutely terrible.
They do not understand that the diet is the major way to correct this problem. They are off in fantasy-land for the most part in the low fat world. Additionally for severe cases, chelation therapy is not recommended by traditional medical doctors, despite the fact that is costs 90% less than bypass or angioplasty and I have found it to be far more effective. Contact The American College for the Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) to find a doctor who practices chelation.
The test does have one redeeming factor though, but it is a risk. The false negative rate is very low. So if someone is anxious that they may have heart disease and they have the test and it comes out negative, there is virtually no risk that calcium blockage exists in the coronary arteries.
CT scans are high in potentially dangerous radiation, and pose a significant threat to children. CT scans, and traditional X-rays, have been associated with cancer and heart disease. I recommend you avoid CT scans unless your or your child's life depends upon it. MRIs are typically safer than CT scans.
High voltage power cables have been officially linked to cancer for the first time.
A study shows that children living near them run a small but significant increased risk of falling victim to the disease.
Sir Richard Doll, the epidemiologist who discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer in the 1960s, will this week warn that children living near electricity power lines are at an increased risk from leukemia.
He is also expected to say that there may be a link with adult cancers but that this is unproven. His work was commissioned by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), the government's radiation watchdog.
Doll is chairman of its Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (Agnir). He has spent months analyzing the results of studies on cancer among people living near power cables.
It is the first time a British government body has accepted the link between cancer and power lines.
It raises the possibility of multi-million-dollar claims by families who have blamed their children's illnesses on the cables. It could also reopen campaigns by local groups to have power lines buried underground or moved away from homes.
Professor Colin Blakemore, a member of Doll's group, said:
"The evidence is that there is a slightly elevated risk of cancer near to power lines. We are going to acknowledge that evidence exists indicating an association between power lines and cancer."
Blakemore said the mechanism was uncertain but could be due to the high voltage lines emitting charged particles called ions which may then be inhaled.
Blakemore added: "It's important to acknowledge that there is a link and we need to do more research on it. Putting power lines underground would be a possibility. The cost would be enormous if we did this to existing power lines, but it is something that we may have to take into account for future development and especially new housing."
Tens of thousands of people in Britain live close enough to power lines to be affected by strong electromagnetic fields.
The analysis in the new report suggests that a small number of children each year could develop cancer.
The link between overhead power lines and cancer was first made in America in 1979. By 1990 several independent British studies had also suggested that electromagnetic fields could damage health. However, successive reports ruled out the connection and legal action by sufferers against electricity companies was abandoned.
The NRPB oversees safety research and regulation for all kinds of radiation. It has always taken a cautious approach to claims that power lines affect health, but this weekend insiders were acknowledging that it may have to revise its policies.
Martyn Day, the attorney who in the mid-1990s pursued unsuccessful claims on behalf of leukaemia victims, believes that the findings could enable legal action to reopen.
"This is probably the most significant step forward for 10 years," he said. "I was forced to back off, pack away the files and put them into archives, but this may well mean I will start to dust them off once more."
The Electricity Association, which represents many of Britain's power generators and distributors, said there was no concrete evidence that the electric and magnetic fields generated by power lines caused cancer. "Any suggestion of a health risk, however weak, needs to be taken seriously," it added.
Investigators in Taipei, Taiwan, report on the environmental effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, specifically, the leukemia risk for children who live near high-voltage transmission lines. The researchers report that children who lived less than 100 meters from a high-voltage transmission line had an elevated risk of leukemia, particularly in the age group between 5 and 9 years. Children living in households less than 100 meters from high-voltage transmission lines experienced an essentially elevated risk of leukemia compared with children who lived in households situated more than 100 meters from the transmission lines.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Feburary 1998;40:111-117,144-147
Can electromagnetic fields (EMF) from power lines, home wiring, airport and military radar, substations, transformers, computers and appliances cause brain tumors, leukemia, birth defects, miscarriages, chronic fatigue, headaches, cataracts, heart problems, stress. nausea, chest pain, forgetfulness, cancer and other health problems?
Numerous studies have produced contradictory results, yet some experts are convinced that the threat is real.
Dr. David Carpenter, Dean at the School of Public Health, State University of New York believes it is likely that up to 30% of all childhood cancers come from exposure to EMFs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns "There is reason for concern" and advises prudent avoidance".
Martin Halper, the EPA's Director of Analysis and Support says "I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies that remotely approached the weight of evidence that we're seeing with EMFs. Clearly there is something here."
Concern over EMFs exploded after Paul Brodeur wrote a series of articles in the New Yorker Magazine in June 1989. Because of Paul Brodeur's reputation. his articles had a catalytic effect on scientists, reporters and concerned people throughout the world.
In November 1989, the Department of Energy reported that "It has now become generally accepted that there are, indeed, biological effects due to field exposure."
The EMF issue gained more publicity in 1990 when alarming reports appeared in Time, the Wall Street Journal, Business Week and popular computer publications. ABC's Ted Koppel and CBS's Dan Rather both aired special segments on EMFs.
In addition to the long-term health concerns, buying a house with high fields will be an economic disaster. In a few years, when power line radiation is as well known as asbestos and radon, a house with high fields will be practically impossible to sell. Already there are hundreds of lawsuits regarding EMFs and property devaluation.
EPA Says the Threat Is Real
By 1990, over one hundred studies had been conducted worldwide. Of these, at least two dozen epidemiological studies on humans indicated a link between EMFs and serious health problems. In response to public pressure, the Environmental Protection Agency IEPA) began reviewing and evaluating the available literature.
In a draft report issued in March 1990, the EPA recommended that EMFs be classified as a Class B carcinogen -- -a "probable human carcinogen and joined the ranks of formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs.
After the EPA draft report was released, utility, military and computer lobbyists came down hard on the EPA. The EPA's final revision did NOT classify EMFs as a Class B carcinogen Rather, the following explanation was added:"
At this time such a characterization regarding the link between cancer and exposure to EMFs is not appropriate because the basic nature of the interaction between EMFs and biological processes leading to cancer is not understood."
Curiously, this rather unusual logic appears on the same page as the following: "In conclusion, several studies showing leukemia, Iymphoma and cancer of the nervous system in children exposed to supported by similar findings in adults in several/ occupational studies also involving electrical power frequency exposures, show a consistent pattern of response that suggest a causal link. "
When questioned about the contradictory nature of these statements, the EPA responded that it was "not appropriate" to use the probable carcinogen label until it could demonstrate how EMFs caused cancer and exactly how much EMF is harmful.
This explanation does not satisfy many critics who claim that the EPAs upper management was influenced by political and economic considerations exerted by utility, computer and military lobbyists.
How Do I Measure EMFs?
A Gauss is a common unit of measurement of magnetic field strength. A Gauss meter is an instrument which measures the strength of magnetic fields. Inside a Gauss meter there is a coil of thin wire, typically with hundreds of turns. As a magnetic field radiates through the coil, it induces a current, which is amplified by the circuitry inside the Gauss meter.
Gauss meters may vary in the strength of the magnetic field they are capable of measuring. A meter used for measuring EMFs from power lines, transformers, substations and appliances around the home, for example, should be able to measure as low as .1 mg.
Gauss meters vary widely in price and accuracy. Meters have either a single axis coil or a triple axis coil. Single axis meters are much simpler than triple axis meters to manufacture and thus, are less expensive.
To use a single axis meter you must point the meter's one sensor in three directions -- -the x, y and z axis. Then, you combine the three readings in a mathematical equation to calculate the combined field strength. Obviously, its far easier and more accurate to use a 3-axis meter. Triple axis Gauss meters are quite accurate, but they are also more expensive.
Another thing to watch out for when purchasing or renting a Gauss meter is whether or not it is frequency weighted. Most meters will read the same EMF strength no mater what the frequency.
As the human body appears to be sensitive to both the field strength AND the frequency, Gauss meters used for biological purposes should be "frequency weighted".
This means that if the field is different than 60 Hz the meter will consider the frequency and use it in calculating and displaying the EMF's strength. This feature is why frequency weighted meters will show a higher EMF reading than those meters typically used by electricians and engineers.
An enormous amount of electricity is created at power generating stations and sent across the country through wires that carry high voltages. All power lines radiate electromagnetic fields. The question is: how much are the
power lines near YOUR home radiating? The amount of EMFs coming from a power line depends on its particular configuration. Power companies know which power line configurations are best for reducing EMFs but most don't feel the evidence supports costly changes in the way they deliver electricity.
A substation is an assemblage of circuit breakers, disconnecting switches and transformers designed to substations have been blamed for causing cancer clusters among nearby residents. Paul Brodeur wrote about several such cancer clusters in the July 9, 1990 issue of the New Yorker Magazine.
A key component of a utility's electrical distribution network depends upon numerous, small transformers mounted on power poles. A transformer looks like a small metal trash can, usually cylindrical.
Even when the electrical service is underground, you will often see a metal box (usually square} located on the ground near the street. Many people don't realize that when they see a transformer, the power line feeding the transformer is 4000 to 13,800 volts.
The transformer then reduces the voltage to the 120/240 volts needed by nearby homes. Since these transformers can be seen in almost every neighborhood, they are a source of concern.
EMFs near a transformer can be quite high, but due to its small structure, the field strength diminishes rapidly with distance, as it does from any point source. For this reason, having a transformer located near your home is usually not a major source of concern, although just to make sure, everyone should measure the field strength around it.
If your home has high EMF readings, it is important to determine the sources of the EMF so that remedial action can be taken, if possible. Many times a particular room will have a higher EMF reading. Check to see if the electricity is coming into the house on the wall outside that room. When this is the case, it is usually a good idea to block off that room and only use it for storage purposes.
Sometimes, the source of a high magnetic field is incorrect wiring. If you suspect that your home is wired improperly, obtain the services of a licensed electrician. Warning: Do not touch electric wires, even if you think the current is turned off. If you need to disconnect electrical circuits to determine the source of magnetic fields, you should call a licensed electrician.
Computers are a complicated subject. Know this: EMFs radiate from all sides of the computer. Thus, you must not only be concerned with sitting in front of the monitor but also if you are sitting near a computer or if a computer is operating in a nearby room.
The Swedish safety standard, effective 711/90, specifies a maximum of 0.25 mG at 50 cm from the display. Many US manufactured computers have EMFs of 5 - 100 mG at this distance. And know this too: the screens placed over monitors do NOT block EMFs. Not even a lead screen will block ELF and VLF magnetic fields.
Space does not permit a more thorough discussion of computers. If you use a computer, it is important that you
measure your EMF exposure with a Gauss meter and review the literature concerning the health impacts of computer use.
Electric Blankets and Waterbeds
Electric blankets create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6-7 inches into the body. Thus it is not surprising that an epidemiological study has linked electric blankets with miscarriages and childhood leukemia.
This pioneering work was performed by Dr. Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, who originally discovered that magnetic fields were linked to childhood leukemia. Similar health effects have been noted with users of many electric blankets and waterbed heaters will emit EMFs even when turned off.
The devices must be unplugged to delete the EMF exposure Additionally, there is the issue regarding the vibrations that are generated by sleeping on standing water. There is less hard data in this area but some experts are concerned about the consequences.
Electric clocks have a very high magnetic field, as much as 5 to 10 mG up to three feet away. If you are using a bedside clock, you are probably sleeping in an EMF equivalent to that of a powerline Studies have linked high rates of brain tumors with chronic exposure to magnetic fields, so it is wise to place all clocks and other electrical devices (such as telephones and answering devices) at least 6 feet from your bed.
Fluorescent lights produce much more EMFs than incandescent bulbs. A typical fluorescent lamp of a office
ceiling have readings of 160 to 200 mg 1 inch away.
Microwave Ovens and Radar
Microwave ovens and radar from military installations and airports emit two types of radiation -- microwave and ELF. Microwaves are measured in milliwatt per centimeter squared (mW/cm2) As of 1/1/93, the U.S. safety limit for microwave exposure is 1 mW/cm2, down from a previous 10 mW/cm2. The Russian safety limit is .01 mW/cm2. All microwave ovens leak and exceed the Russian safety limit. In addition, recent Russian studies have shown that normal microwave cooking coverts food protein molecules into carcinogenic substances.
When measuring microwaves from military and airport radar sources, 100% accurate readings can only be found with extremely expensive digital peak-hold meters. Why? Because analog devices begin to drop their reading immediately after the radar sweep passes. Thus, while an analog meter can show whether or not you are being exposed to radar EMFs, analog meters can't show your true exposure. Although thousands of dollars to purchase, digital-hold meters capable of accurately detecting radar EMFs can be rented for several hundred to over a thousand dollars per month.
Telephones and Answering Machines
Telephones can emit surprisingly strong EMFs, especially from the handset. This is a problem because we hold the telephone so close to our head. Place the Gauss meter right against the ear piece and the mouth piece before buying a phone.
Some brands emit no measurable fields and others emit strong fields that travel several inches....right into your brain. Answering machines, particular those with adapter plugs (mini-transformers), give off high levels of EMFs.
Electric Razors and Hair Dryers
Electric razors and hair dryers emit EMFs as high as 200 to 400 mG. This seems alarming, but we don't know if this is worse (or better) than a chronic exposure to a 2-3 mG field. Some EMF consultants recommend that hair dryers not be used on children as the high fields are held close to their rapidly developing brain and nervous system.
Electricity is an inseparable part of our modern day society. This means that EMFs will continue to be all around us. But as Discover Magazine postulated, aside from making our life easier, is electricity also making our lives shorter?
Most experts agree that limited, non-chronic exposure to EMFs is not a threat. For example, it is probably acceptable for a person to be near a toaster in the morning.
BUT, it is not advisable for a person to sleep under an electric blanket, up close, live near a powerline/substation, and sleep in a room where the power enters the home. This person is under an extreme case of chronic exposure. This condition, unfortunately, applies to millions of Americans.
If you wish to follows the EPA's advice and practice "prudent avoidance" then the following advice is offered:
Measure your home, work and school environments with a Gauss meter Measure EMFs both inside and outside your home. Don't let your children play near power lines, transformers, radar domes and microwave towers.
Avoid areas where the field is above 1 mG. Measure the EMFs from appliances both when they are operating and when they are turned off. Some appliances (like TVs) are still drawing current even when they are off.
Don't sleep under an electric blanket or on a waterbed. If you insist on using these, unplug them before going to bed (don't just turn it off). Even though there is no magnetic field when they are turned off, there may still be a high electric field.
Don't sit too close to your TV set. Distance yourself at least 6 feet away. Use a Gauss meter to help you decide where it is safe to sit.
Rearrange your office and home area so that you are not exposed to EMFs from the sides/backs of electric appliances and computers. In the home, it is best that all major electrical appliances, such as computers, TVs, refrigerators etc, be placed up against outside walls. That way you are not creating an EMF field in the adjoining room.
Don't sit too close to your computer. Computer monitors vary greatly in the strength of their EMFs, so you should check yours with a meter. Don't stand close to your microwave oven. Move all electrical appliances at least 6 feet from your bed. Eliminate wires running under your bed. Eliminate dimmers and 3-way switches.
Be wary of cordless appliances such as electric toothbrushes and razors. You may choose not to wear a quartz-analog watch because it radiates pulsating EMFs along your acupuncture meridians.
An older mechanical windup watch would be an acceptable alternative. It is also recommended to wear as little jewelry as possible and to take it off at night. Many people have metal sensitivity which can be aggravated by placing it right on the skin. Measure with a gauss meter to be sure.
And last, but not least, always always always remember that EMFs pass right through walls. The EMF you are reading on your Gauss meter could be radiating from the next room...or from outside your home.
Additional Radiation Info:
Eyeglass frames should ideally be made from plastic with no wires in them, otherwise they can serve as an antenna to focus the radio and cellular phone waves directly into your brain.
What EMF Level Is Safe?
There's a heated debate as to what electromagnetic field (EMF) level is considered safe. Since the experts have not come to an consensus, you'll have to decide for yourself... Many government and utility documents report the usual ambient level of 60-Hz magnetic field to be 0.5 mG.
Thus, any reading higher than 0.5 mG is above the "usual" ambient exposure. Many experts and public officials, as well as the few governments that have made an effort to offer public protection, have adopted the 3 mG cutoff point. The EPA has proposed a safety standard of 1 mG. Sweden has set a maximum safety limit of 1 mG.
Dr. Robert Becker, an MD who has been studying the effects of EMFs for 20 years, states a lmG safety limit in his book Cross Currents. When electricians try to solve a magnetic field problem they do their best to drop the level to 1 mG or below.
Dr. Nancy Wertheimer, a Ph.D. epidemiologist who has been studying EMFs for 20 years, has been looking at the epidemiological data in a different way -- she is trying to associate EMF levels with
health rather than disease. The level she is coming up with is a cut off of 1 mG. Russian researchers claim that 1/1000ths of a mG should be the standard.
The BioElectric Body believes that there are several stages of health between "optimum wellness", "degenerative disease" and "Cancer". Thus, we maintain our own living and sleeping quarters at 0.5mG and below.
Recommended Reading: Cross Currents The Perils of Electropollution. The Promise of Electromedicine Robert 0. Becker, M.D. Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc., 1990
Currents of Death The Attempt to Cover Up the Threat to Your Health Paul Brodeur Simon and Schuster, 1989
Electromagnetic Man Health & Hazard in the Electrical Environment Cyril W. Smith & Simon Best St. Martin's Press. Inc. 1989
(NaturalNews) Electricity has become an integral part of our lives, with electromagnetic fields (EMFs) all around us. Electricity certainly makes our lives easier in many ways. Is it possible that electricity is also making our lives shorter?
Most experts agree that some limited exposure to EMFs is not a threat. We can feel reasonably safe using a toaster, for example. The problem comes when we are chronically exposed to large does of EMFs such as encountered when living near power lines or sleeping in the room where the power enters the house. Unfortunately, this type of chronic exposure to EMFs applies to millions of Americans.
Negative effects of EMF exposure
The effect of EMFs on biological tissue remains controversial. Virtually all scientists agree that more research is necessary to determine safe or dangerous levels. What they do know is that iron, which is necessary for healthy blood and is stored in the brain, is highly affected by EMFs. The permeability of the cell membranes of nerves, blood vessels, skin and other organs is also affected, as well as the intricate DNA of the chromosomes. Every bodily biochemical process involves precisely choreographed movement of EMF sensitive atoms, molecules, and ions.
Dr. David Carpenter, Dean of the School of Public Health, SUNY, has reported that up to 30 percent of all childhood cancers may be due to exposure to residential power lines.
Epidemiological studies in Sweden by Maria Feychting showed that persons exposed to high magnetic fields at home and at work had 3.7 times the risk of developing leukemia compared to those not exposed.
Two research reports have identified elevated risks of breast cancer among women working jobs with presumed higher than average exposure to EMFs.
If you want to follow the Environmental Protection Agency’s advice to prudently avoid EMFs, you may want to invest in a Gauss meter to measure your home, work or school environments, both inside and outside.
What is a Gauss Meter?
A Gauss is a common unit of measurement of magnetic field strength. The Gauss meter is a tool for measuring Gauss values. Inside a Gauss meter is a coil of thin wire. As a magnetic field radiates through the coil, it induces a current, which is amplified by the circuitry inside the Gauss meter.
These meters vary in the strength of magnetic fields they are able to measure. A meter used for measuring EMFs from power lines, transformers, substations and appliances should be able to measure as low as .1 mg.
Gauss meters vary in price and accuracy. They have either a single axis coil or a triple axis coil, with the single axis being much simpler and therefore much less expensive. To use the single axis meter, you point its one sensor in three directions, the X, Y and Z axes, and combine the readings in an equation to calculate the combined field strength. The triple axis meters are more complicated in their operations, but produce more accurate results.
Another consideration is whether the meter is frequency weighted. Most meters read the same EMF strength no matter what the frequency. Since the human body appears to be sensitive to both the field strength and the frequency, meters should be frequency weighted. The frequency weighting feature is why these meters will show a higher EMF reading than those typically used by electricians and engineers.
Power lines, substations and transformers
Power generating stations produce enormous amounts of electricity and send it through high voltage wires. All power lines radiate electromagnetic fields, with the exact amount depending on its particular configuration. Power companies know which configurations are best for limiting EMFs but most don’t feel the evidence against EMFs supports their making costly changes in the way they deliver electricity.
A substation is where the conversion from transmission to distribution takes place. Through an assemblage of circuit breakers, switches and transformers, the electrical current is stepped down to the power grid. A good bit of public concern about the threat of EMFs has revolved around the substation, which has been seen as the cause of cancer clusters among nearby residents.
A component of a utility’s electrical distribution network depends on numerous transformers mounted on power poles. These transformers look like small cylindrical trash cans. When the electrical service is buried underground, you will see a metal box located on the ground near the street. Although many people don’t know a transformer when they see it, the power line feeding the transformer is carrying 4000 to 13,000 volts. The transformer then reduces the voltage to the 120-/240 current needed by the nearby homes.
EMFs near a transformer can be very high, but the field strength diminishes rapidly with distance. For this reason, having a transformer located near your home should not be a major concern, but you might want to measure the field strength around the transformer to be sure.
Electric blankets and water beds
An electric blanket can create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6 to 7 inches into the body. An epidemiological study has linked electric blankets with miscarriages and childhood leukemia. Similar effects have been reported for users of water bed heaters which emit EMTs even when turned off but still plugged in.
Electric clocks emit a magnetic field as much as 5 to 10mG up to three feet away. If you have a bedside clock, you may be exposing yourself to the EMF equivalent of an electric power line. Since studies have linked high rates of brain tumors with chronic exposure to magnetic fields, it may be wise to place all clocks and other electrical devices such as phones at least 6 feet from where you sleep.
Electric Razors and Hair Dryers
Electric razors and hair dryers may emit EMFs as high as 200 to 400 mG. This may seem like a really large amount, but your exposure to these devices is probably not continuous for long periods of time. Some experts recommend that hair dryers not be used on children as the high field would be held close to the rapidly developing brain and nervous system of the child.
Fluorescent lights produce a higher level of EMFs than incandescent bulbs. A typical fluorescent tube may have a reading of 160 to 200 mG at 1 inch away.
A better lighting choice is the LED bulbs available at (www.EcoLEDS.com) , reported by Mike Adams to be the world’s most eco-friendly bulbs.
Microwave ovens and radar
In addition to microwaves, another type of radiation, ELF, is emitted from microwave ovens and radar from military installations and airports. Microwaves are measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared (mW/cm2). The safety limit for microwave exposure is 1mW/mc2. Microwave leakage is a serious issue, serious enough for the FDA to set legal limits on the leakage permitted by a microwave maker.
Since microwave radiation has been known to cause cataracts, birth defects, cancer and other serious illnesses, you don’t want to stand in front of or close to a microwave in operation. Once you start thinking about the hazards of microwaving foods, you may find that you can heat food in a toaster oven almost as quickly. You might also want to think about that “frankenfood” you are creating in your microwave by the rearrangement of its molecular structure.
If you want to measure microwaves from military or airport radar sources, you will find that the only really accurate measures can be found with extremely expensive meters. If you are set on doing this, you can rent these meters.
The handset of a telephone may emit a surprisingly high amount of EMFs. Since you hold the phone next to your head, you will probably want to get the phone with the lowest EMF reading. Place the Gauss meter directly against the ear piece and the mouth piece to check the reading before you buy a telephone.
(NaturalNews) Three recent studies have confirmed the role of inositol hexaphosphate (IP6) in cancer prevention and control of experimental tumor growth. IP6 is a naturally occurring carbohydrate first identified in 1855. It can exist on its own or can be bound to various other minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron or sodium. It’s found in substantial amounts in whole grains, dried beans, nuts, seeds, rice, wheat germ and corn.
In addition to being found in plants, IP6 is contained within almost all mammalian cells, where it is important in regulating vital cellular functions such as signal transduction, cell proliferation, and differentiation. IP6 is also available in supplement form.
Studies and Results
As published in Oncology Research, February 2008, researchers reported that IP6 was shown to have significant inhibitory effects against a variety of primary tumors. They hypothesized that IP6 would inhibit the cell growth rate of Barrett’s adenocarcinoma in vitro. Two Barrett’s associated adenocarcinoma cell lines were treated with IP6. Reductions in cellular proliferation were observed in both cell lines. Apoptosis (necessary programmed cell death) of the adenocarcinoma cells was increased. Researchers concluded that IP6 decreased cellular growth of these cells by pro-apoptotic mechanisms.
As published in Journal of Surgical Research, June 2006, researchers reported that IP6 had previously been shown to have significant inhibitory effects against pancreatic cancer in vitro. They hypothesized that IP6 would significantly inhibit cell growth of cutaneous melanoma in vitro. Melanoma cell lines were cultured and treated with IP6. The findings were that IP6 significantly decreased cellular growth and increased late apoptosis in melanoma, suggesting its potential therapeutic value.
As published in Journal of Surgical Research, June 2005, researchers reported that IP6 has been found to have significant inhibitory effects against a variety of primary tumors including breast and colon. They hypothesized that IP6 would significantly inhibit cell growth and increase the apoptotic rate of pancreatic cancer in vitro. Two pancreatic cancer cell lines were cultured and treated with IP6. Researchers concluded that treatment of pancreatic cancer with IP6 significantly decreased cellular growth and increased apoptosis.
IP6 Offers Cancer Prevention and Cure, and Much More
In Dr. A.M. Shamsuddin's review of findings in Nutrition and Cancer vol. 55, he states that in addition to its role in cancer prevention and control of experimental tumor growth, progression and metastasis, IP6 possesses other significant benefits, such as the ability to enhance the immune system, function as a natural antioxidant, prevent calcification and kidney stone formation, lower elevated serum cholesterol, and reduce pathological platelet activity.
According to Dr. Shamsuddin, when IP6 is administered it is rapidly taken into the cells and dephosphorylated to lower inositol phosphates, which further affect signal transduction pathways. In addition to the arresting of cell proliferation, this process also induces the differentiation of malignant cells. As previous known, the more differentiated the malignant cells, the less aggressive and dangerous is the cancer. Enhanced immunity and antioxidant properties also contribute to tumor cell destruction.
In their book Too Good to be True?, Drs. Kim Vanderlinden and Ivana Vucenik describe what is presently known about how IP6 works to help normalize the rate of cell division, normalize cell physiology, enhance Natural Killer (NK) cells, increase tumor suppressor P53 gene activity, inhibit inflammation, and inhibit angiogenesis. The book also elaborates on other conditions shown to greatly benefit from IP6 including diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
Food Sources or Supplements?
There have been no clinical trials of IP6 as yet. In America, clinical trials are generally the province of drug companies, and little is done with substances which cannot be patented. In spite of this lack, IP6 is considered quite safe by all its investigators. As it is a naturally occurring substance already found in human cells, there are no side effects. So if you want the preventative or therapeutic benefits of IP6, the question becomes whether to try to get sufficient amounts from dietary sources or to supplement.
There are reasons to use IP6 in supplemental form. In food, IP6 is bound to protein. Before it can be absorbed it must first be freed from this protein. An enzyme called phytase that is present in both food and the intestinal tract performs this function. The problem is that the power of the phytase enzyme damages the IP6 itself, rendering much of it inactive and therefore less effective. Pure IP6 from a supplement is absorbed intact providing us with its complete medicinal properties. Research has shown just that: when fiber from All Bran was added to the diet of rats with mammary cancer, it was much less effective than the equivalent amount of IP6 added to their drinking water. This is like the situation of lycopene which must be freed from tomatoes by cooking to achieve its potential.
Supplementing with Inositol+Cal-Mag IP6
When taken alone, IP6 has the potential to bind with minerals, to act as a chelator. This is evidenced by its ability to prevent kidney stones. This leads to the question of high amounts of IP6 contributing to osteoporosis. To prevent this, IP6 is bound to atoms of calcium and magnesium. When supplemented in this form, IP6 will be delivered to the body along with substantial amounts of highly absorbable calcium and magnesium.
Inositol then becomes the first half of the Inositol+Cal Mag IP6. It provides the base structure for the Cal Mag IP6. A number of research studies have shown that when combined in this formula, the effect is complimentary and augmentative. Most IP6 for supplementation comes from rice extract and is formulated as Inositol+Cal Mag IP6.
Inositol+Cal Mag IP6 is available as 'Inocell' from Natural Factors, as 'Cellular Forte' from Phytopharmica, and as 'Cell Forte' from Enzymatic Therapeutics. The formulations of each are identical. The prices are quite different. It is available as capsules which provide a preventative or a maintenance dosage of 2 capsules twice a day. It is also available as powder for therapeutic dosages which range from one scoop daily up to several scoops twice daily. (Also see my information on the Cancer Protocol pages on this site regarding Artemisinin -- use Find or Search in your web browser to look for IP6 or Artemisinin).
(NaturalNews) Given the fact that just about everything you put on your skin gets absorbed into your bloodstream, it is interesting that there is a complete lack of regulation of cancer-causing ingredients in skin care products. There are over 150 toxic cancer-causing ingredients currently used in cosmetic products alone. According to federal law, products containing cancer-causing substances should carry a written warning. But the FDA does not enforce this law with cosmetics or personal care products. Consumers are left to purchase these products at their own risk, and as a result they are being harmed by them.
Let's consider a product that's harming tens of millions of people every day in America alone: sunscreen. Sunscreen products do not block ultraviolet radiation very well unless you apply multiple coats, but there has been a flurry of research lately on the harm caused by sunscreen chemicals. These chemicals actually promote skin cancer. This product is causing the very condition from which it claims to protect people.
The skin is not the only organ that is harmed by sunscreen chemicals. Those chemicals are absorbed by the skin, circulate throughout the body and end up harming the liver, the organ responsible for neutralizing chemicals in the body. The continued use of sunscreen products -- especially those with fragrance in them -- will inevitably harm the liver and, in my opinion, can lead to organ failure or liver cancer.
Sunscreen is not the only harmful product people put on their skin; consider perfume and cologne. In an effort to smell attractive to others, consumers routinely put toxic chemicals on their bodies that come out of beautifully designed glass bottles. Most people do not realize that these fragrances are often made from toxic substances that are known to cause cancer; the perfume industry gets away with murder. This includes everything from skin cream to moisturizer lotion, not to mention shower soaps and other cleaning products with added fragrance. Unless you are buying the natural forms of these products from truly organic companies, there is no doubt that you are applying a bewildering array of harmful chemicals to your skin. And when you put them on your skin, they are absorbed directly into your bloodstream.
Consumers' bodies are like toxic chemical dumps This is partly why consumers in Western society have hundreds of different synthetic chemicals lodged in their livers, hearts, brains, and other organs. If you keep exposing your body to these chemicals, they will keep accumulating. All of these products ultimately lead to liver cancer and other serious disorders caused by chemical stress on your body. Eventually, immune system suppression will kick in and you will succumb to some form of cancer or other type of immunity breakdown, including autoimmune disorders. It takes a focused detoxification effort to get these chemicals out.
Your skin is your body's largest organ, so its health is crucial to your overall health. It has the largest mass and surface area of any organ in your entire body, and your skin is in contact with the outside environment more than any other organ in your body. Your skin exchanges chemicals with the environment; even if you do not put chemicals on your skin, it still exchanges air and water with the environment.
This is easy to demonstrate by taking a swim, and then observing how your fingers start to look like raisins -- you are actually drinking water through your skin. Chemicals in swimming pools are a genuine health hazard, and chlorinated pool water has been found to cause bladder cancer. The best place to swim is the ocean, where you can absorb water that has natural minerals, rather than in chlorinated city water.
The skin easily absorbs chemicals But many substances go through your skin other than water. This simple fact was denied for many years by proponents of conventional medicine, who said the skin was some sort of barrier. This was before they figured out that they could use the skin to deliver drugs; now we have patch delivery systems for nicotine, birth control, and even Alzheimer's patches that actually deliver a measured dose of drugs through the skin.
Nevertheless, the cosmetics industry continues to make products with extremely hazardous chemicals. The FDA claims that these products are safe because they are not consumed orally. You would be amazed to find what the FDA allows to be sold as long as it says, "for external use only." The assumption is that it will stay external and not be absorbed into the body, so its toxicity is irrelevant, but we now know this is not true. Toxic chemicals on the skin quickly lead to toxic blood in the body.
Some molecules, of course, are too large to be absorbed through the skin, but most of the chemicals found in personal care products and sunscreen products actually do go right through the skin. The same is true with fragrance, hair color products and all varieties of personal care products that contain toxic chemicals. So, the next time you are shopping for any personal care products, keep in mind a good rule I learned from Amazon John, the founder of the Amazon Herb Company: Don't put anything on your skin that you wouldn't eat.
Amazon Herb's Lluvia skin care line is made with substances you can actually eat. You certainly cannot make that claim about the cosmetics you find in department stores -- let's face it, they are mostly just chemicals prettied up in expensive-looking packaging and sexy advertising.
Think carefully about what you put on your skin. Safeguard your skin just as you would any other organ in your body. Your skin is exchanging chemistry with the environment, and if you want to be a healthy individual free of toxic chemicals in your liver, heart, brain, kidneys and many other organs, it's time to stop putting cancer-causing chemicals on your skin. Throw out the junk cosmetics, skin lotions, creams, cleansers, shampoos, deodorants, perfumes, and all other personal care products that deliver a harmful dose of bad chemistry.
Antioxidant Blend May Offer Protection in Life Threatening Conditions (e.g., During Radiation Therapy) by Barbara L. Minton (see all articles by this author) http://www.naturalnews.com/023318.html
(NaturalNews) A newly released study suggests that providing yourself with a broad spectrum of antioxidants will offer you protection even under such extreme conditions as total body irradiation. As published in the April, 2008 edition of Radiation Research, the purpose of this study was to determine whether a dietary supplement consisting of L-selenomethionine, vitamin C, vitamin E succinate, alpha-lipoic acid and N-acetyl cysteine could improve the survival of mice after total body irradiation.
Study and Results
Results of the study indicate that these antioxidants significantly increased the 30-day survival rate of the mice after their exposure to a potentially lethal dose of X rays when given prior to or after the irradiation. Pretreatment of animals with antioxidants resulted in significantly higher total white blood cell and neutrophil counts in peripheral blood. Antioxidants were effective in preventing peripheral lymphopenia (reduction in the number of lymphocytes circulating in the blood) only after low-dose radiation. Antioxidant supplementation was also associated with increased bone marrow cell counts after irradiation, and with increased Bcl2 and decreased Bax, caspase9 and TGF-beta1 mRNA expression in the bone marrow after irradiation.
Maintenance of the antioxidant diet was associated with improved recovery of the bone marrow after sub-lethal or potentially lethal irradiation.
The researchers concluded that when taken together, oral supplementation with antioxidants appears to be an effective approach for radioprotection of hematopoietic (blood forming) cells and improvement of animal survival. Modulation of apoptosis is implicated as a mechanism for the radioprotection of the hematopoietic system by antioxidants.
What are antioxidants?
Antioxidants are natural compounds that help protect the body from the ravages of free radicals. Free radicals are atoms or groups of atoms that cause damage to cells, impair the immune system and lead to infections and degenerative diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Many scientists view free radical damage as the basis of the aging process.
Even a healthy body produces free radicals, many of them being oxygen derived. They may form in response to exposure to the sun, toxic chemicals, air pollution, or as part of various metabolic processes.
Ideally these free radicals are kept in check by free radical scavengers, which consist primarily of four enzymes: superoxide dismutase (SOD), methionine reductase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase. The healthy body produces these enzymes as a matter of course. Melatonin, the sleep hormone, is also a highly powerful antioxidant produced by the body. And under ideal conditions, the body is also able to obtain antioxidants from food, such as vitamin A, beta-carotene and other carotenoids, flavonoids, vitamins C and E, and selenium. Some herbs also have potent antioxidant properties.
Unfortunately, today’s food supply reflects less than ideal conditions, so it is quite difficult to get enough antioxidants from your diet to protect you from the ever increasing levels of free radicals generated in our polluted environment. As a result, many people are turning to dietary supplements, which can be extremely effective, as this study indicates.
Implications of the study
The researchers of this study chose to supplement their mice with a variety of powerful antioxidants. That’s because antioxidants work synergistically in their ability to provide protection against free radicals, so it is better to take smaller doses of several different antioxidants than a large dose of only one. This finding has implications for diet as well as supplementation.
Some examples of obtaining a broad spectrum of antioxidants from the diet would be found in the decision to eat a variety of fruits during the day. By choosing to eat different fruits of different colors, you will obtain a much broader variety of antioxidants than you would if you chose to buy only a large bag of apples or oranges for the week. The variation in their color is your key to the variation of their antioxidant powers.
The same logic hold true with vegetables. You will achieve a much larger array of antioxidants by eating a salad made of small amounts of all the veggies on the salad bar than you will with a full size serving of only one variety. Again, let color be your guide. The more colors on your plate, the higher the variety of antioxidants.
If you are headed to the juice bar, don’t just order the carrot juice. Ask for some of all the veggies or fruits they have available.
Berries are extremely rich in antioxidants. They have been shown to be especially protective against cancer.
If you decide to use antioxidant supplements, you can buy one of the multi-antioxidant formulations available. A better way may be to familiarize yourself with the major antioxidants and tailor your supplementation to the gaps in your diet. For example, if you eat a bowl of blueberries every morning, you won’t need an antioxidant containing lutein.
The supplements used in the study
L-selenomethionine is a highly bioavailable form of selenium, a nutrient essential for the functioning of glutathione peroxidase, one of the body’s main antioxidants. This is the form of selenium increasingly used in cancer treatment and studies and is believed to be protective against cancer. Since selenium content of fruits and vegetables is determined by the selenium content of the soil in which they are grown, it’s hard to know that you are getting enough selenium from what you eat. But if you eat Brazil nuts regularly, you probably get plenty of selenium.
Vitamin C is an antioxidant that is required for at least 300 metabolic functions including tissue growth and repair, adrenal functioning, and oral health. It aids in the production of anti-stress hormones and the immune system protein, interferon. It is needed for the metabolism of folic acid, tyrosine, and phenylalanine. Vitamin C can reduce the symptoms of asthma, and protect against the effects of pollution. It is cancer preventative, protects against infection and boosts the immune system. Vitamin C is able to combine with certain heavy metals and other toxic substances, and escort them out of the body. It is instrumental in lowering blood pressure and helping to prevent atherosclerosis and blood clots. It has anti-aging properties and is essential in the formation of collagen.
The body does not manufacture vitamin C so it must be obtained from diet or supplements. Good amounts of vitamin C are found in most fruits, particularly citrus and berries, and in many vegetables, particularly the green leafy varieties. Many herbs also contain amounts of vitamin C. The best supplements of vitamin C are food sourced, such as those from acerola cherry. The bioflavonoid complex is synergistic with vitamin C.
Vitamin E succinate is one of the two ester forms of vitamin E, the other being vitamin E acetate. The ester is a form more resistive to oxidation during storage than the unesterified form. Bio-availability is equal to that of free form vitamin E. The ester form, vitamin E succinate, is required to effectively inhibit growth and induce death in cancer cell grown in culture. Supplements of vitamin E may range from those containing only alpha tocopherol to those containing the full E complex of the four tocopherols and the four tocotrienols.
Alpha lipoic acid (ALA) is known as the all purpose antioxidant. It is powerful in its own right, and also as a recycler of vitamins C and E. It can restore the antioxidant properties of these vitamins after they have already neutralized free radicals. ALA stimulates the production of glutathione in the body, and aids the absorption of coenzyme Q 10. ALA is water soluble as well as fat soluble, a feature that allows it to move into all parts of cells to deactivate free radicals.
According to Phyllis and James Balch in their Prescription for Nutritional Healing, supplemental ALA has been used in Europe for several decades to treat peripheral nerve degeneration and to aid in the control of blood sugar levels in diabetics. It helps the liver detoxify metal pollutants, blocks cataract formation, protects nerve tissues against oxidative stress, and reduces blood cholesterol levels. ALA may also be instrumental in the prevention and treatment of chronic degenerative diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Without ALA, cells cannot use sugar to produce energy. People who choose to take only one antioxidant supplement often choose ALA. Food sources are spinach, broccoli, and organ meats.
N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) is a stable form of the amino acid cysteine, and is used by the liver and the lymphocytes to detoxify chemicals and other poisons. It is very powerful against alcohol, tobacco smoke and environmental pollutants, all of which suppress the immune system. It is needed for the production of glutathione and helps maintain glutathione levels in the cells. Supplementing with NAC can boost the levels of protective enzymes in the body, slowing the cellular damage that is characteristic of aging. It may also reduce the frequency and duration of infections. Combined with L-Glutamine (Note: Dr. Blaylock does not recommend Glutamine or MSG for anyone, especially cancer patients), NAC offers a powerful energy boost.
NAC is produced in the body from the amino acid cysteine found in all food sources of protein. Its synthesis is dependent on the availability of selenium, vitamin E and the B vitamins.
Supplements of NAC are also available and are used in many anti-aging regimens.
How I Survived Lymphoma Cancer, It's No Accident. I'll Share With You The 6 Steps I Used To Get Back To A Normal Life.
I have put this website together to guide you through the process that I used to recover from lymphoma cancer and get my life back to normal. And I’ve included all the steps, tips, and advice that I discovered along the way.
At age 36 I was diagnosed with Lymphoma. That was September of 1997. My GP found a cancerous mass between my heart and my lungs and I was advised that surgery was too dangerous. The suggested treatment was 12 sessions of chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy.
About half way through chemo I developed an extremely high fever and was advised to go to the emergency department of my local hospital immediately. Needless to say things went downhill from there. Within days I was in an induced coma, which lasted for a couple of weeks, followed by heavy sedation for the following week or so.
All in all I spent 3 months in hospital – one month in intensive care with a near death experience or two, a couple of weeks in the oncology ward where my doctors advised me that chemo and radiotherapy were no longer an option – it was too dangerous to continue with these treatments.
I then spent another 6 weeks in a rehabilitation hospital where I had to learn to walk and move my limbs all over again. You see, after not moving for 3 weeks during the drug induced coma/heavy sedation, I had muscular myopathy which is when your muscles lose all strength and tone and you are left with virtually no mobility).
During my hospital stay, I discovered a very interesting thing. Lots of people around me were feeling sorry for themselves. And that was absolutely understandable! I'd done the same thing. You wouldn't be normal if you didn't feel sorry for yourself at some stage.
Anyway, I noticed some people got stuck in the "I feel sorry for myself" mode and weren't able to move forward from that spot - mentally. And because they were stuck in this mode of thinking they didn't really put 100%+ effort into recovering from cancer and getting their life back to normal. Now don't get me wrong, they wanted to recover. BUT they weren't aware that their thoughts were sabotaging their recovery efforts. And sometimes the sabotage was enormous.
When I was able to eat again, I also discovered I had no real appetite for animal protein. I began ordering vegetarian meals at hospital. When I returned home my wife and I decided we would learn everything we could about real health and true nutrition.
My wife Barbara was wise enough to realise that, as she puts it, I was “my own best doctor”, and never questioned my food choices. She set about discovering what a truly healthy diet consisted of and then implemented it.
We set about finding the best program we could for perfect health. And mental, emotional and physical issues all had to be included.
We then discovered true health retreats where naturopaths were advocating exactly what we had done over the prior few months and we’ve never looked back since.
After my hospital stay I would regularly see my GP every fortnight. Within a few short months he was amazed at the transformation that had taken place. Considering I’d only had half the chemo, never started radiotherapy and almost died in hospital.
My doctor didn’t believe that improving my mindset, diet and environment could have such a huge impact on my health. But he kept telling me to “keep doing what you’re doing” because it was working, and working well. There are 6 basic steps I used to recover from Lymphoma.
Because we are thinking, feeling human beings, I cover the mental, emotional and physical aspects to recovering from this terrible disease. You really are doing yourself a disservice if you limit yourself to the physical aspects only! If you are looking for a specific part of the process, simply click on the appropriate step below, where you’ll access further detail. Otherwise, continue reading for all of the detail and links to resources you will need.
My 6 basic steps to recovering from lymphoma were:
Lymphoma and you. Your mindset. Have the end in mind. Building a strong immune system with the 7 Laws of Health Using Super foods Detoxing your body Clearing mental and emotional issues.
Step one—Lymphoma (or Cancer) and you. Your mindset.
First things first. What you think is the single most important thing to get right. Did you know that what you think directly impacts the way you feel and act, and therefore dictates the things and results you get?
If you focus on dying, do you think it will happen? I do. So don’t focus or obsess or stay there mentally all the time.
This is how your mind works. The conscious mind is the reasoning part of you and it acts like a filter, where beliefs enter into your being via the sub-conscious mind. The sub-conscious mind is the feeling, emotional part of you. It accepts what is coming into it, without restriction. We then act, and thus obtain certain things or results, some of them negatively impacting the body. And sometimes the body breaks down. Fortunately, the body is self repairing, if given the right environment. So what you think affects the way you feel which in turn can impact your body.
Here’s what you need to do:
Consciously decide to LIVE and consciously decide to be WELL, then believe it’s possible; Control what goes into your sub-conscious mind so that you build a storehouse of beliefs that serve you. Ask yourself frequently, “Is this thought good for me?” Consciously reject a thought if it doesn’t serve you or doesn’t feel good. Focus on your future. A bright, happy and healthy future. Imagine it and consider the possibilities often. In your mind, plant yourself firmly in a bright and happy future. We used proven techniques to ensure we got our mindset right because it's crucial to getting back to a normal life.
Lymphoma isn’t necessarily a death sentence. There is hope, so consciously decide to be hopeful and positive. You are in control here.
Step two—Have the end in mind
Have the end in mind. What I mean is, are there things you have always wanted to do, places you have always wanted to see, things you have always wanted but have never gotten around to them? Well, of course there are.
What I want you to do is be clear about what you want out of life and what you still want to achieve. Why? Because we need to clearly be focused on want we want, and not on what we have right now. Focus on what you want, not what you have.
Step three—Building a strong immune system
Follow the seven laws of health. These laws are pretty much commonsense. Like me, you’re probably aware of them, but had never given much thought to just how important they are. And so, haven’t really applied them.
The 7 laws of health are:
Pure Air is crucial to our health. We can only survive a few minutes without it. Pure air will strengthen your body, increasing the oxygen levels of your cells and hence improving all bodily functions, including your body’s disease fighting ability. Do the following:
Regular deep breathing exercises Avoid pollution as much as possible, including cigarette smoke, smog and car fumes Regularly air out your bedding, and your clothing (use a clothes line instead of a dryer in warm weather) Always sleep with a window open, even in winter If you live in a high rise building or you think the air quality in your home is poor, invest in an ioniser or air purifier The best time to exercise outdoors is early morning before the peak hour rush. Avoid exercising near or on main roads. Instead find a park with plenty of trees.
Sunlight Did you know the sun can destroy bacteria and viruses? Or that the sun can increase your white blood count? Good for fighting disease. How about that the sun converts cholesterol under your skin to Vitamin D? Okay, most of us know about the last one. A little sun exposure is beneficial. Does that mean I’m advocating sunbathing for hours on end? No, I’m certainly not. WARNING – use your commonsense here. Try this commonsense approach:
Only expose your skin to early morning or very late afternoon sun. Don’t do the hottest part of the day (when your shadow is shorter than you), or you’ll burn (and increase your chances of skin cancer). Start slowly with 5 minutes a day and very gradually increase as your tan develops. Don’t overdo it. Use your commonsense. Expose as much of your skin as possible, especially those parts that require healing.
Self control and balance I’m sure it comes as no surprise that living a balanced lifestyle and engaging in a little self control will hold you in good stead. What I’m referring to here includes the following:
Keeping a good work to life balance. Spending time with your loved ones and getting some time for yourself. Being productive versus chilling out. Eating in moderation, not too much or too little Exercising in moderation, again not too much or too little Eliminating things that harm you. Reducing things that don’t serve you.
Rest We’ve all heard that getting a good night’s sleep is important. But do you really know why? Or when is the best time to sleep? The best sleep is obtained between the hours of 10pm to 2am. Studies have shown that your brain releases certain chemicals during this time which aid you in your nightly recuperation and bodily repair. Also, bear the following in mind:
When you’re not feeling well, you generally have the urge to lie down and rest. That’s the ‘automatic pilot’ in your body telling you what you should do. Try to get 7-8 hours a night. Rest is a basic healer. It’s why my doctors decided the best course of action when chemotherapy almost killed me, was to induce a coma for 2 weeks - they ran out of options. “Let the body heal itself”, they said.
For some of us, the mind is much stronger than the body. So you tell yourself, “I don’t need much sleep.” Just because your mind is alert and active doesn’t necessarily mean that your body isn’t tired. Make sure you adequately rest your body.
Every night your body processes and eliminates wastes, and rejuvenates itself. Rest is crucial to your pH levels; keeping them balanced. My naturopath tells me that cancer thrives in an acidic body, and adequate rest helps maintain the alkaline levels in your bloodstream.
Exercise I’m sure we’re all fully aware of the health benefits of exercise, including the following:
Looking better, more shapely, toned and muscular Feeling better, brain releases mood elevating endorphins More energy available to get things done Good for the heart and lungs, etc.
However, are you aware that exercise also helps to cleanse your body by eliminating toxins when you sweat? Exercise can also give your organs a workout, while doing yoga for instance. Exercise also oxygenates your blood which helps your body fight disease. Here are some helpful hints:
If you haven’t exercised for a while, start slowly. Gradually increasing to 20 minutes 3-4 times a week. Walking is a good place to start. So are simple stretching exercises like beginners yoga.
You’ve probably heard the saying, “No pain, no gain”? Well, flush it! We’re not training for the Olympics here. Were trying to improve our life, not make it miserable. If you’re in pain, you could be doing some damage.
Find an exercise you like; there are many! Walk the dog, join a gym, buy an exercise video. Use your commonsense – start slowly and build up very gradually to 20 minutes.
Diet & Nutrition and Metabolically Balancing your body
In Volume 2 of the 1976 edition of the medical journal Lancet, an article by Allan Cunningham theorised that, based on his research, there is a direct connection between lymphoma and consumption of cow protein – milk and meat.
In 1991 Dr T Baroody published the book "Alkalize or Die". Dr Baroody believes that the advanced symtoms of over acidity in the body are all forms of cancer. (Note: this is incorrect. There are actually a little more cancer patients who are too alkaline than too acidic -- see elsewhere on this page).
In 1996 the Harvard School of Public Health released a report stating that inadequate diet, smoking and lack of exercise are the likely causes of almost 70% of cancers.
Most of us are hardly surprised by the above. You know what you eat has a direct impact on the way you look, think and feel.
When you are hungry your body is actually crying out for nutrients. Food should provide your body with quality fuel to keep it going. After eating you should feel energised, not sluggish or tired. Much of what we eat today lacks maximum nutritional value so many of us crave more and more food. What I recommend below is what many naturopaths recommend.
By simply switching to foods with better nutritional qualities you improve your bodily functions and thus your immune system is stronger and you feel energised. Your body will be better equipped to fight disease so you can recover from Lymphoma (or other cancers). Eat right for your metabolic type (see elsewhere on this page and take a self test and/or Niacin or Vitamin C test).
(Note: I have deleted the one-size-fits-all information that was here, because Michael was a carb type and it did not apply to the more than half of the population who are Balanced or Protein Metabolic Types. The pH of the ash left when a food is incinerated that Michael referred to in the deleted section has no relationship to its effects upon the human body -- see elsewhere on this page).
Here’s another law you’ll be familiar with. The body is made up of mostly water, as is your blood stream. Drink 6-8 glasses of pure water per day, more if doing strenuous work or in the heat. Why? Because, if our bodies are mostly water, then our bodies function at their peak when we are hydrated, this includes our brain. So does our blood. Functioning, processing, eliminating, in fact everything that happens on the inside works far more efficiently when we are hydrated, including our immune system. Try this:
Drink 6-8 glasses of pure water a day, minimum.
Don’t drink with your meals. This keeps your digestion efficient, as liquids dilute your digestive juices.
Drink half an hour before a meal, and wait an hour-and-a-half after a meal before drinking. You should find that increasing your consumption of fruit, salads and vegetables reduces thirst while eating because these foods have a high water content.
First thing in the morning have a large glass of warm water with the juice of up to half a lemon and a pinch of Celtic sea salt. Lemon is a good cleanser and the warm water will help with bowel movements and rehydrate your body after sleep.
If you are tired try drinking a glass of water. Dehydration can often make you feel tired.
Superfoods are in a category all their own. These are foods that pack high potency nutrition or are highly beneficial to your body.
Spirulina, wheat grass or barley grass powder. Take either daily in a large glass of half water and half organic non-citrus juice. Mix well in a shaker. Barley Grass is the most alkalizing.
Seaweed is packed full of minerals. My wife finely chops wakame or arame seaweed and adds to soups stews and casseroles, much like you would a stock cube or bay leaves (without discarding). Seaweed salads are nice and you need to find a good recipe.
Sprouts (alfalfa etc) are low in fat, high in fibre and living enzymes. Consume frequently. Very easy to grow yourself, in your kitchen.
Vitamin C – a great immune booster and disease fighter. Supplement your diet with good quality Vitamin C.
Garlic has antibiotic properties. It stimulates the immune system by increasing the efficiency of white blood cells and promotes T cell reproduction.
Yogurt is great for restoring intestinal health. Use organic or biodynamic – sheep or goat yogurt is preferable to cow yogurt. Containing lots of beneficial bacteria. When your intestines and bowels are functioning correctly you body is better able to absorb the nutrients you are consuming. Back to The 6 Steps
Step five—Detoxing your Body
Complete a detoxification program. Detoxification is very beneficial in recovering from disease. Instead of bombarding your body with toxic substances and diverting your body’s attention to toxic crises, complete a detox program and divert your body’s energy to healing. There are many books on the subject available from good health food stores. Detoxification includes:
A short course of fasting and juicing. Massage therapy, including lymphatic drainage Hydrotherapy - utilising the healing power of water Sauna therapy which helps your body dump toxins from deep within your body Colonic therapy which cleanses the bowels and really helps your body to better absorb nutrients and dump waste materials. Back to The 6 Steps
Step six—Clearing mental and emotional issues.
Research shows mental and emotional issues can compromise health and even cause illness. The mind body connection must be balanced and in harmony for the body to function at its peak. Mental and emotional issues include:
Low self esteem Poor self image Childhood issues Issues with your parents Relationship issues Guilt Feelings of undeserving or unworthiness Money issues Coping with stress Boredom And the list goes on and on. Clear these and you’ll be on your way to better health. I have found meditations by Doreen Virtue to be very beneficial with many of my mental and emotional issues, especially Healing with the Angels and Angel Therapy. There are other also other methods and techniques I used to clear issues. (The above is from http://www.lymphomaadvice.com)
Some Information About Detoxification from Dr. Ben Kim:
Note: As Webster (www.cancertutor.com) says, I wouldn't put all of my eggs in any one basket: to increase chances of putting out a big fire, use many garden hoses and a couple fire hoses.
Many of my friends (not just naturopathic doctors, but MD's, too) have had their doors kicked in by SWAT teams and the FDA (wearing bulletproof vests and using machine guns) been hauled off in handcuffs, put in jail, and had their products confiscated and destroyed.
Dr. Jonathan Wright (an MD) in Washington state was closed down, dragged off in handcuffs and had his B vitamins destroyed for daring to say that they helped with cholesterol and heart disease! The drug companies actively look for any natural products that compete with drugs and turn people into the FTC and FDA. 1992 - The Tahoma Clinic FDA Raid On May 6, 1992, FDA agents joined armed King County police officers in an armed raid against the clinic of Dr. Jonathan Wright, an M.D. and natural health practitioner. His crime? He was treating patients with injectable high-dose B vitamins -- a safe, natural treatment -- and in doing so was actually helping patients heal.
The armed agents smashed down the door, rushed into the clinic like a SWAT team with guns drawn, terrorizing the patients and shouting at them to put their hands in the air. Over the next fourteen hours, agents rifled through Dr. Wright's clinic, seizing patient records, computers, vitamin supplies, and various natural therapy products. The FDA illegally held on to confiscated items, including the computers needed to run his clinic, for three years.
But was Dr. Wright really so dangerous as to justify an armed raid? He's a graduate of Harvard and the University of Michigan Medical School. He's a book author, a prolific public speaker, and served as the nutrition editor of Prevention magazine for more than ten years. The purpose of the FDA raid was clearly not to arrest Dr. Wright, who was never charged. Rather, the purpose appears to be conducting a campaign of terror: sending a message to the alternative medicine community that anyone engaged in nutritional treatments could be raided and shut down, with no legal justification.
"Did you know there are natural or alternative cancer treatments that can provide a 97% true cure rate on recently diagnosed cancer patients, and can even achieve a greater than 60% true cure rate on cancer patients given up on by orthodox medicine?" http://cancertutor.com/
Virtually all these things are applicable to pets, too -- just the dosages are different. In fact, there is more information available for treating cancer with natural methods in pets than in people because of active government and media suppression.
PET Scans Useful For Some Cancer Treatment, But How Do Patients Fare? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071113074942.htm Positron emission tomography or PET scans can help clinicians diagnose and treat some cancers, but it is not clear yet whether the imaging technology helps people with cancer live longer and healthier lives.
You don't need poisons to deal with bugs. Start by making yourself an unappealing target.
Making human flesh unappetizing to mosquitoes, ticks, flies, and fleas is an age-old preoccupation. The earliest insect repellents included smoke, mud, and various plant substances. Our contemporary contribution is DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), a powerful insecticide found in over 400 repellents. DEET can peel paint, damage rayon and spandex, and melt plastic. Up to 56 percent of DEET applied to the skin enters the bloodstream, and reactions to it include skin rashes, lethargy, muscle spasms, nausea, and irritability. An extreme reaction can cause seizures and even death. So it's hardly worth using DEET to deter insects unless you're someplace with high rates of insect-borne disease or you experience severe allergic reactions to bites and stings.
There are natural alternatives to DEET, made primarily from plant essential oils, that can protect you in less threatening circumstances. Although "there is no natural repellent as effective as DEET," says Eve McClure, executive vice-president of Quantum, a natural repellent manufacturer in Eugene, Oregon, "natural repellents do help ward off mosquitoes, black flies, gnats, and fleas, and they may provide some protection against ticks."
Ticks, the carriers of Lyme disease, are among the most worrisome pests. If you are traveling in an area known for Lyme disease (according to the Centers for Disease Control, this includes the Atlantic states and Northern California), contact the American Lyme Disease Foundation at (800) 876-5963 for preventive advice.
Reactions: From Mild to Fatal
Although most people experience only temporary pain and swelling after a bee or wasp sting, some individuals are hypersensitive and can experience a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction. The symptoms of anaphylaxis include hives, agitation, difficulty in breathing, nausea, dizziness, and a swollen tongue or face. Without prompt medical treatment, this can be fatal. Although anyone can have an anaphylactic reaction, the people most at risk are those with a history of allergic reactions to stings -- hives, wheezing, or a previous episode of anaphylactic shock.
People who know they are at risk should carry an emergency kit with injectable epinephrine, which is available by prescription. Home care can include drinking slightly salty water(1/2 tsp. per quart, at 4 oz. per hour), Vitamin B-5 at large doses briefly (2 grams 3X a day, for 3-4 days), Licorice capsules or tea at 1-2 cps./1 cup tea, 2 or 3 X a day.
You don't have to be in the tropics or in an area at high risk for insect-borne disease to take the following steps. Hordes of insects your own backyard can lead you to seek extra protection. Debra Nuzzi-St. Claire, an herbalist in Boulder, Colorado, has these suggestions (see "Making Your Own Natural Insect Repellent," below, for essential oil combination):
Spray clothing and bedding (including the mosquito netting of your tent, if you're camping) with an alcohol-base repellent.
Pour several drops of the combined pure essential oils onto a candle.
Place a few drops on cloth or paper strips and hang them around the room, especially by doors and windows.
Add the base oil to shampoos and liquid soaps.
Most natural insect repellents are made with an essential oil distilled from citronella, a tall, aromatic grass indigenous to Southern Asia. Its pungent, lemony fragrance is pleasant to most people but objectionable to mosquitoes. Other aromatic essential oils commonly found in natural insect repellents include cedarwood, lemongrass, eucalyptus, peppermint, pennyroyal, lavender, and bergamot.
These are safe when applied to the skin, but should not be taken internally without the advice of a professional. Pennyroyal, in particular, is highly toxic if ingested.
Essential oil repellents are available in spray or oil form. According to Eve McClure, restrictions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have made it difficult for consumers to identify natural repellents by packaging alone. Since the EPA classifies all repellents as insecticides, it requires expensive testing, which includes experiments on live animals. Because most natural repellent manufacturers are unwilling -- or financially unable -- to comply with EPA guidelines, they cannot promote their products as natural insect repellents. "We had to remove the bug from our label and change our name from 'Buzz Away' to 'Zzz Away,' " says McClure (see "Making Your Own Natural Insect Repellent").
After the Bite
If mosquitoes, flies, and fleas feast on you in spite of your efforts, Nuzzi-St. Claire recommends applying undiluted tea tree oil to the bites. Tea tree oil has antiseptic and anti-inflammatory properties and is usually non-irritating. Test a small area of skin before applying the oil liberally. If the essential oil irritates your skin, wash it off with soap and water and dilute the tea tree oil in five parts of jojoba or almond oil before reapplying. Testing for sensitivity is a good practice when applying any essential oil for the first time.
Sharol Tilgner, a naturopathic physician and natural first-aid expert in Portland, Oregon, recommends applying a drop of peppermint essential oil to insect bites. "Anything with menthol will increase the circulation in the area and dissipate the anticoagulant that the mosquito has injected into you," she says. Other topical treatments for reducing itching and inflammation include cold compresses, lavender essential oil, and calamine lotion. Dr. Thomas S. Lee, an Arizona naturopathic physician, likes pure lavender oil rubbed into the bite ASAP. "The Chinese patent medicine White Flower Oil is a clean mentholated formula that works well, too."
Well-equipped and well-informed, you can take those restorative strolls and hikes with greater confidence. Carl Mitchell of the Centers for Disease Control in Fort Collins, Colorado says, "People definitely shouldn't avoid outdoor activities for fear of bug bites and stings. Just take a few precautions."
Stings: The Finer Points
Although bees, wasps, hornets, and yellow jackets generally won't go out of their way to attack, they can be extremely aggressive if you disturb their nests or bother them while they're feeding. They're attracted by perfumes and scented bodycare products, as well as by sweet foods such as ice cream, fruit juices, and watermelon. Bright-colored clothing can also make you a target.
If you do get stung, the following tips can help minimize the problems:
Bumblebees, wasps, yellow jackets, and hornets can attack repeatedly, so if you get stung, get out of the area immediately. If you're stung by a yellow jacket, avoid swatting at it. Crushing the venom sac releases a chemical that incites its nest-mates to attack. Honeybees can sting only once, but the stinger and venom sac they leave in your skin pump venom for two to three minutes. Remove them immediately, being careful not to squeeze the venom sac. The safest way to do this is to scrape them out with a credit card or the dull edge of a knife. If the stinger remains behind after you've scraped away the venom sac, remove it gently with tweezers.
Making Your Own Natural Insect Repellent
Herbalist Debra Nuzzi-St. Claire suggests combining the following essential oils to make a natural insect repellent:
1/2 ounce citronella oil
1/4 ounce lavender oil
1/8 ounce pennyroyal oil
1/8 ounce tea tree oil
1/8 ounce jojoba oil
Do not use this blend undiluted on your skin. Follow these instructions for diluting:
To make an insect repellent oil that can be used on your body, add 16 ounces of jojoba or almond oil to the base oil mixture and blend thoroughly. For an insect repellent spray, add 16 ounces of vodka to the base oil mixture, pour into a spray bottle, and shake before using.
Need an affordable online source for high-quality essential oils? Click the banner below to visit our friends at Mountain Rose Herbs... (http://www.mountainroseherbs.com)
Toss out those expensive chemical compounds and clean your home a safer, natural way.
For many of us, the thought of housecleaning conjures up the image of a huge array of cleaning products -- products with brand names and mysterious chemical ingredients. The average person has been so bombarded with advertisements for these products that he or she actually believes cleaning is impossible without them. We know of one woman who bought $38.32 worth of cleaning items alone on one trip to the supermarket. And for many of us, these expensive products end up lying half-empty, moldering in kitchen cabinets. But cleaning can be done without brand-name products, which are not only expensive but also can be dangerous your health.
Of the two million chemicals now in existence, only a few hundred have been tested adequately for their potential for causing cancer, liver or kidney damage, birth defects, and so on. Even when there is a known danger, many chemicals remain in use. Spot removers, for instance, contain either chlorinated hydrocarbons or petroleum distillates, and can be lethal even in small quantities.
Some 35,000 serious accidents occur each year with bleaches, dyes, waxes, polishes, and assorted cleaning compounds. More than a thousand children in the United States die each year from accidental poisoning, often from chemical compounds. Some swallow electric dishwasher detergent (the container may look like a cereal box), some drink furniture polish that resembles cherry soda. But these are the acute cases.
A clue to long-run effects of these chemicals is found in the recent study showing that housewives have a cancer rate double that of women working outside the home. Our houses contain many of the chemicals known to be cancer hazards in industry -- and many of these we use for cleaning.
However, we can reduce the number of dangerous chemicals in the home to a very few -- perhaps bleach, washing soda, and ammonia. We can keep these under lock and key, and use them sparingly. As for all the rest, the o-phenylphenols and isopropanols, we don't need them.
Here are some "grandmother-tested" ways to clean without dangerous chemicals, and save money, too.
Scouring powder: Combine nine parts whiting (from a hardware store) with one part soap granules. This mixture won't scratch surfaces as commercial products do, and it omits the unnecessary chlorine, which could accidentally combine with other chemicals -- like ammonia -- to produce dangerous chlorine gas.
Brass and copper cleaner: Vinegar and salt paste.
Window cleaner: 4 tablespoons ammonia, 2 tablespoons vinegar, and 1 quart water, followed by lots of elbow grease with crumpled old newspapers for a special sparkle.
Drain cleaner: First, try a plunger. Then try 1/2 cup washing soda followed by 2 cups boiling water. For a stronger treatment, combine a handful of baking soda with 1/2 cup vinegar. Close the drain and let it sit, then flush with water. Do this regularly to prevent buildup. (Washing soda is an alkali much less caustic than lye, but it should be kept locked up. It is dangerous.)
Rug cleaner: Get the spill scooped or blotted up fast! Dip a small brush in cold water and work out the spot. For a grease spot, sprinkle a generous amount of dry baking soda or dry cornstarch on the spot. Let it stand for an hour or so, then vacuum. If the grease remains, try the Magic Spray Cleaner below, and a stiff brush.
Rug shampoo mix: Mix 1/4 cup mild detergent or soap, with 1 pint of warm water and 2 tablespoons vinegar. Whip into a stiff foam. First, vacuum the rug thoroughly. Apply the foam and scrub. Let dry, then vacuum again.
Magic spray cleaner (for surfaces other than varnish, aluminum or asphalt tile): 1/4 cup ammonia, 1/8 cup vinegar, 1 tablespoon baking soda, and 1 quart water. Pour into glass or plastic bottle, screw on a hand squirter top, and enjoy.
Furniture polish: Use paste wax or mineral oil, which are much less toxic than petroleum distillates like "lemon oil," which isn't from lemons.
Spot remover: For fabrics that don't take to bleach, apply ammonia diluted with an equal amount of water. Put paper towels underneath to blot. If the ammonia odor clings, apply a table-salt solution. (A last resort for old stains is a dab of vinegar.)
Oven cleaner: Sprinkle spills generously with salt while the oven is still hot. The burned deposit should scrape off with no trouble when the oven cools. For thorough cleaning, set an open shallow dish of full-strength ammonia inside the cold oven. Close the door and let it stand overnight. The ammonia gas from the solution is absorbed by the grease, which ends up like soap. Do not use this method on aluminum.
Deodorizers: Use baking soda here, there, and everywhere -- down the drain, on baby spit-up, in diaper pails, refrigerators, cat litter and the kitchen sponge. It's easy and simple.
But now that you've cleaned the house, you're hungry. You eat, and then you have all those dirty dishes, rags, and the laundry, too. What to do about them? It's time to look at the great detergent/soap controversy.
Dishes done by hand come clean quite easily with soap powder. Greasy or burned residues can be soaked with soapy water and a dash of ammonia. Dish detergents aren't at all necessary unless you use an electric dishwasher, and then they are extremely dangerous. They are so caustic that a mouthful could be fatal to a small child.
Some folks think that electric dishwashers are necessary to reduce the number of germs on their dishes, but there are other ways to get them germ-free. The best approach is to wash and rinse them well in hot water, then let them dry by standing, covered with a towel. Do not dry them by hand.
It's clothes-washing that really sparks the soap-detergent controversy. Soaps don't dissolve as easily as detergents. And in hard water, soap combines with the water's calcium grains to make a hard "curd" on clothes and tub. But soaps can do as well as detergents, even in cold water, according to a study published in Consumer Research Magazine.
What's needed is to make sure the soap dissolves before you put the clothes in -- stirring helps. If you have hard water, add some washing soda. It will precipitate the calcium out of the water to prevent curd formation. (Other water-softening powders rely on huge quantities of phosphate.)
Remember that washing soda is dangerous, so keep it away from children. Bleach helps clean, and borax will "sweeten" the wash, but these may not be needed most of the time, and they, too, are toxic chemicals.
But why bother with soap? Are detergents really that bad? Actually, we know little of the possible harmful effects of detergent chemicals, either on people or on the natural environment. We do know that enzymes added to some detergents to "fight stains" can induce allergies. Detergents can cause asthma and skin irritation, and they have been shown to kill sperm in mice. They irritate if inhaled, and can be fatal if swallowed.
Besides, detergents generally cost 1/3 more per wash load than soap powder. The profit margin in detergents has been at least 25 percent greater than that on soaps, according to one government study.
Another point is that detergents usually rely on some phosphates to carry off dirt. Phosphates pollute our waterways, destroying lakes and rivers. Some detergents rely on other compounds, but often we do not know the long-term effects of these. NTA (nitrilotriacetic acid), for instance, was touted as the replacement for phosphates until it was found to cause birth defects and cancer.
One further argument against detergents is that they are made from petroleum, a nonrenewable resource. In contrast, soap is made from lye and fats or oils that are part of an ever-renewing natural cycle of life.
That's what cleaning is about, really -- renewing our environment so that life goes on happily and healthily. What use is a clean house, if it pollutes our bodies and the world around us? Cleaning with simple, natural ingredients can be a testimony of our dedication to an integrated, organic way of life.
"Out, Out, Damned Spot!"
I remember Lady Macbeth washing her hands endlessly, trying to get the bloodstains off. She was guilty. Spots and stains tend to bring on guilt feelings.
A little historical light on the subject may help. A friend of mine did a study on the American home as it was portrayed in magazines since the year 1900. She found that every new invention, like flush toilets or vacuum cleaners, inaugurated a new -- higher -- standard of cleanliness.
For instance, an advertisement for vacuum cleaners urged women to "put an end to dusty Friday," the day when they swept the floor and the rugs for the weekend. The standard of cleanliness was once-a-week sweeping. After the arrival of the vacuum, a higher standard developed -- cleaning floors and rugs two or three times a week.
The flush toilet, when invented, became not simply a way to avoid cold, wet journeys to the outhouse, but a new object that must be scrubbed, deodorized, and disinfected.
Detergents, invented in the 1930s, led to standards of clothes cleanliness in which even a tiny spot leads us to throw the whole garment in the wash, rather than sponging the spot and wearing the article one more day.
Cleanliness became next to Godliness -- a sign that people had "made it" into the middle class and could afford the new appliances and chemicals.
There was, however, a strange side-effect for women. The housewife's work may have been easier, but the hours were longer. A time study of rural urban housewives in 1930 showed almost no differences in hours -- 61.0 on the farm, 63.2 in towns and cities. By 1947, farm women still worked a 60-hour week, but women in cities (usually the owners of more labor-saving devices) were logging close to 80 hours per week.
The clue to this mystery comes from the Ladies Home Journal: American homes were becoming "more satisfying," and housekeeping standards were much higher.
So when we consider that spot or stain, we should remember that cleanliness is only one of many values which change from time to time. Is it more important to have perfectly clean clothes, or to end the chemical contamination of our waterways brought on by phosphates, enzymes, brighteners, and cancer-causing carbon tetrachloride?
If art gum erasers, soap-and-water, and elbow grease don't get all the smudges off the walls, is it better to leave them for the next paint job or to run for an aerosol-foam wall cleaner with expensive packaging, high advertising costs, and several chemicals that have not been tested for their long-term effect on humans? (My experience is that the commercial cleaners will not get all the smudges off anyway.)
Most of the time we may find ourselves saying that a little dirt never hurt anyone. It's a sign of life and growth. We may find ourselves buying the clothes and furnishings that accept soap and water, nature's own remedies for dirt. After all, nobody ever expected a garden to be dirt-free, and in cleaning our homes we are truly tending the garden of our lives.
Article from Organic Gardening magazine, March 1979
Our product testing department tried about 50 formulas for grease removers, furniture polishes, drain cleaners, window cleaners, and other common household cleansers that you can make yourself. Many of the homemade versions do cost less, some only half as much as commercial counterparts.
Suzanne Ebbert, Product Testing Director, cautions that you shouldn't count on homemade formulas to cut your cleaning costs in half, though you could shave a couple of dollars off the grocery bill every month or so.
What Suzanne found most attractive about mixing your own cleaners was the control over ingredients. Some commercial preparations don't tell you what's in them. Some contain only common chemicals like bleach and ammonia, whose health hazards are known.
But the labels on others show weird, unfamiliar ingredients. If you find you're using one of the mystery blends, you can mix a substitute yourself -- and know what's in it.
Don't assume that all homemade formulas are harmless, Suzanne warns. Ammonia is just as poisonous, and smells just as bad, regardless of whether you pour it into the bucket or a chemical company pours it into the factory vat. Still, you can mix harmless cleaners from ingredients like baking soda and water.
How effective are homemade cleaners? Suzanne found several formulas that worked as well as the most expensive and effective commercial preparations. Many of the formulas cleaned as well as the cheapest commercial counterparts but meant more scrubbing than the most effective ones.
But Suzanne points out that there is a place for these milder formulas. The mild cleansers work perfectly well for light cleaning jobs, and if you're willing to scrub, they'll work on tougher jobs. As far as household chemicals go, too often we're tempted to use the big guns to swat flies.
Here's a selection of some of the better cleaning formulas Suzanne found. More appear in The Natural Formula Book for Home and Yard, edited by Dan Wallace (Rodale Press, 1982).
Old-Fashioned Glass and Window Cleaner
2 tablespoons cornstarch
1/2 cup household ammonia
1/2 cup white vinegar
1 gallon warm water
Mix the ingredients in a bucket and use to scrub windows. Try not to clean glass the sun is shining on because it will dry too fast and streak.
Rating: Very good. The best commercial preparations left the window only a little shinier. Even though the cornstarch makes the mixture slightly gritty, it didn't scratch the glass. Poisonous.
Hazards: Ammonia is poisonous, so keep the mixture away from children and arrange good ventilation. Wear gloves, because it's a heavy-duty cleaner and rough on the hands.
Cost: About 20 cents a gallon (not including water)
Vinegar Window Cleaner
1/2 cup white vinegar
1 gallon warm water
Just mix and scrub.
Rating: Very good. We'd been warned that plain water could do as well as a vinegar solution, but our subjective impression was that the vinegar made it a lot easier to get rid of smudges. In theory, vinegar is supposed to remove hard-water spots.
Hazards: May be hard on your hands, but safe enough to drink.
Cost: About 7 cents a gallon (not including water)
1 tablespoon flour
1 tablespoon salt
1 tablespoon white vinegar
Combine salt and flour in small bowl and stir until blended. Add the vinegar and mix into a thick paste. Smear on the paste with a damp sponge or cloth and rub gently. Let the polish dry for about an hour. Rinse well with warm water and buff dry with a soft cloth.
Rating: Good. Does the job but you need to scrub more than you would with a commercial cleaner.
Hazards: Safe enough to eat, and it's not gritty enough to scratch the metal.
Uses: Suitable for brass, bronze, copper and pewter. Not for silver, silver plate, and jewelry.
Cost: Less than a penny for about 3 tablespoons of paste (not including water)
1/4 cup baking soda (sodium bicarbonate)
1 cup household ammonia
1/2 cup white vinegar
1 gallon warm water
Mix ingredients and store in tightly capped container.
Rating: Excellent. Performed as well as top-of-the-line commercial products.
Uses: Many. Tile and linoleum floors, formica countertops, appliances, etc.
Hazards: Read about ammonia above.
Cost: About 40 cents a gallon (not including water)
2 tablespoons or 1/8 cup liquid bleach
1 quart cold water
Mix in a scrub bucket. Moisten an old cloth with the solution and wipe onto surface. Let stand about 2 minutes and rinse well.
Rating: Very good. In the ballpark with commercial cleaners, but few name-brand cleaners got rid of smudges with less scrubbing.
Hazards: Bleach is poisonous, so keep it away from children. It will bleach anything it touches, so use only on colorfast items. Check the solution first on a hidden spot.
Uses: Same as above.
Cost: Less than a penny a gallon (not including water)
1½ cup household ammonia
1 gallon warm water
Mix in a pail and use to scrub.
Rating: Very good. A few of the best commercial cleaners outperformed it.
Hazards: Ammonia is poisonous and its fumes sting the eyes and throat. Wear gloves. Don't mix with chlorine bleach because the combination produces poisonous gases called chloramines.
Uses: Same as above.
Cost: About 8 cents a gallon (not including water)
2 ounces borax
1 teaspoon ammonia
2 quarts water
Dissolve the borax and ammonia in a bucketful of water. Scrub a really dirty wall from the bottom up. If you scrub from the top down, the dirty water will run down over the dry, soiled wall leaving hard-to-remove streaks. Oddly enough, it won't stain wet, clean walls. For textured walls, old socks are good scrubbers because they won't tear off in little pieces as easily as a sponge might. To keep water from dribbling down your arm, fasten an old washcloth around your wrist with a rubber band.
Uses: For painted walls, not wallpaper.
Rating: Very good. A few commercial preparations required less scrubbing.
Note and a Caution: Users have reported that this solution works well to remove wallpaper, if that's what you desire. If not, see Uses above.
Hazards: See ammonia above. Don't let children eat the borax either.
Cost: About 6 cents for 2 quarts (not including water)
(NaturalNews) The disinfectant wipes used in hospitals are more likely to spread dangerous infections than to prevent them as currently used, a study conducted by researchers from Cardiff University and presented at the general meeting of the American Society of Microbiology in Boston has warned.
Researchers observed the cleaning procedures in the intensive care units of two Welsh hospitals. They noted that staff tended to use disinfectant wipes on more than one surface, rather than using a clean wipe for each surface.
"There was a tendency for the staff in the intensive-care unit to ... move on to consecutive surfaces in close proximity to the initial surface," said lead researcher Gareth Williams. "So from a bed rail to a table, for instance. ... with the same wipe. That set the alarm bells ringing."
The researchers then tested how effective three different types of disinfectant wipes were at killing and removing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). One type of wipe contained a detergent, another contained a disinfectant and the last contained a natural antimicrobial.
Rather than killing most of the bacteria on a surface, the wipes were more likely to scoop them up.
"We found that all three wipes suffered from the same problem" Williams said, "in that they transferred high numbers [of bacteria] and in fact in most cases uncountable numbers to consecutive surfaces. ... too many to count to the consecutive surfaces."
"These disinfectants don't kill all the bugs. That's not how they work," said Andrew Simor, head of microbiology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto. "You're physically removing a layer of the organisms. But that doesn't necessarily kill them. And so it's easy to pick them up and transfer them to another area."
"We found that the most effective way to prevent the risk of MRSA spread in hospital wards is to ensure the wipe is used only once on one surface," Williams said.
I must have missed the announcement, but it sure looks like a military "surge" was launched in September in the war on cancer. Most notable was the news that Katie Couric's star-studded "Stand Up to Cancer" telethon, which aired on the three main networks, raised $100 million dollars to "fight cancer." In addition, the results of a whole series of new studies were announced in the last few days promoting major breakthroughs in brain cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer. All in all, if you were to believe the media, it would appear that we're finally (or more accurately, once again) seeing the long-promised light at the end of the tunnel in the war on cancer. Ah, if only that were true.
Over the years, I've certainly taken some shots at the medical establishment and doctors -- with more than a little justification. When it comes to cancer, I've called them to task for:
Thinking that the body actually is comprised of isolated parts that can be treated separately, with no consideration of the whole Ignoring where cancer actually comes from Ignoring the role of diet in health and cancer Ignoring the role supplements can play in reducing the risk of cancer Diminishing the role of environmental and dietary toxins in the promotion of cancer Spending their time and your money looking for magic bullet cures for cancer And treating cancer as though it were actually caused by a chemotherapy deficiency Now, make no mistake, I am not anti-doctor. Unlike many in the alternative health community, I am happy to give praise where praise is due. And as I always like to point out, John Wayne Bobbitt was far better off with a surgeon than an herbalist after his wife "adjusted" him. So what is it that I am actually saying? It's that, yes, some day, there most likely will be some major breakthroughs in cancer treatment that will allow you to abuse your body for years on end and not have to pay the "cancer penalty." But that day is not today. And if you come down with brain, pancreatic, or prostate cancer in the next ten years and you're looking for your doctor to save your life, you're making a bad bet. Quite simply, I'm saying that there is far less than meets the eye in all of the stories we are seeing this month. But more importantly, I'm also saying that you can immediately cut your risk of cancer by some 90% without any need for new medical technology, pharmaceutical drugs, or genetic breakthroughs.
Despite the fact that the Stand Up to Cancer telethon go the biggest play in the media, the crux of the news this month is really about the release of the new cancer studies. In fact, when you think about it, the $100 million raised by Stand Up to Cancer is really nothing more than an extension of those studies since it's going to be used to fund more research of the same type. If these studies are truly advancing us in the war on cancer, then the money will have great value. If the studies are only marginal in their real world impact on cancer treatment, then the value of the money raised will be worth significantly less. So let's look at the studies and see what value we're getting for our money.
Pancreatic and brain cancer studies
Scientists with the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center at the Johns Hopkins University have managed to draw a map of the genetic mutations involved in two of the most aggressive cancers:
Glioblastoma (the most common form of brain cancer) Pancreatic cancer.
Researchers examined more than 20,000 genes in different groups of cancer patients and found hundreds of genetic changes in those people afflicted with pancreatic or brain cancer. Interestingly, they also found that the genetic changes were not identical in the different tumors -- that, in fact, they varied from person to person. The typical pancreatic cancer contained 63 genetic alterations and the average brain tumor 60. Genes blamed for one person's brain tumor were different from those found in the next patient. Although such chaotic data might at first appear to complicate things, that's not necessarily true. As Dr. Kenneth Kinzler from Johns Hopkins, who led the pancreatic work, said, "Genes don't work alone. They function together in small groups called pathways to perform the cell's necessary activities...Figure out which genes cluster in which pathways and a simpler picture emerges."
Out of all the hundreds of genetic alterations they observed, the Hopkins team identified just 12 core pathways that were abnormal in most pancreatic tumors. And in Nature, The Cancer Genome Atlas, researchers reported just three core pathways at work in most glioblastomas. This certainly shrinks the playing field, and as might be expected, companies have already jumped in and are researching drugs to block the particular enzyme pathways implicated in the studies.
Another potential benefit of the studies, as suggested by researchers, is that the work points to possible ways to catch cancer earlier, by tracing mutant DNA floating through the bloodstream well before tumors themselves start to spread.
It's all very exciting! So what am I complaining about? What's my problem? Actually, I see two:
Understanding that there are pathways and actually controlling those pathways without significant side effects are two different things. How many times have we seen trumpeted intellectual cancer breakthroughs fade into oblivion within a couple of years? If an alternative health company failed to make good on so many promises, the FDA would shut them down in a heartbeat. Heck, Smiling Bob's owner at Enzyte just got 25 years for not delivering on his promises to help with "male enhancement," which is hardly in the same league as failing to deliver on promised cures for cancer again and again and again. Truly, it seems that cancer researchers get to operate under a different set of rules. We spend over $200 billion a year on cancer in the United States alone, and the failure of this money to produce meaningful results is never challenged. No one is held accountable. In fact, failure just begets more money. The second problem I have, though, is much bigger. It's that if you actually look at these cancers (pancreatic, brain, and prostate) in their totality (at the forest instead of the trees, if you will), it becomes readily apparent that "inherited" genetic issues may indeed give you a predisposition to getting these cancers, but that predisposition only affects a small percentage of people who actually come down with them. The bulk of these cancers are caused by things that we can control. And, therefore, you can immediately cut your chances of coming down with these cancers by some 90% simply by making some different choices. Now, the simple fact of the matter is that if I can back those two statements up, then as a society, we are seriously heading down the wrong road. So let's take a look and see what the reality is.
Pancreatic cancer is a common and highly fatal malignancy. Approximately 32,000 cases will be diagnosed this year in the Unites States -- and approximately 32,000 people will die from it. Those, as we like to say in the trade, are bad odds! Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most frequent cause of cancer death after lung, breast/prostate and colorectal cancer. The survival of patients with pancreatic cancer is dismal with most patients dying within 5 years due to cancer-related complications.
Since 1950, the annual incidence of pancreatic cancer in the United States has almost doubled from 5.3 to 9.2 cases per 100,000 people. The incidence is rising at a similar rate in virtually every other developed country in the world. It has been theorized that because the risk of developing pancreatic cancer increases steadily with age, its rising incidence may reflect the fact that the U.S. population is living longer than in 1950. Approximately four-fifths of all cases occur after the age of 60; among 80- to 84-year-olds, the annual incidence is 90.2 cases per 100,000 population, 36 times the rate for people between 40 and 44 years of age (2.5 per 100,000). Then again, the increased incidence could just as easily be explained by more years of exposure to environmental factors and dietary choices that make the body more susceptible to cancer. Is there any reason to believe this might be the case -- that age is secondary to environment?
And the answer is yes.
First, pancreatic cancer is seen most often in developed, industrial countries. The United States and northern European countries, including Great Britain, have high rates; low rates are found in the African nations, South America, the Near East, and India; and rates for southern Europe, Asia, and the Far East are in the middle of the range. Hmmm!
Second, the most important known risk factor for pancreatic cancer is cigarette smoking. Several reports from the U.S. Surgeon General have indicated that the risk of pancreatic cancer for cigarette smokers is 2-3 times that of nonsmokers. The increase in the incidence of pancreatic cancer followed the increased use of cigarettes that began after World War II. Evidence of the relationship between smoking and pancreatic cancer is provided by the recent increase in mortality from this disease among women, whose use of cigarettes has also steadily increased. In fact, the death rate for women has gone up twice as fast as the rate for men.
Further, scientists have reported that a diet high in meat and fat may be related to a 50% increase in your risk of getting pancreatic cancer. And in addition, one large study suggested that fruits and vegetables may reduce your risk by an equivalent 50% (how poetic). Finally, a significant percentage of patients with cancer of the pancreas have worked in occupations where they were exposed to solvents and petroleum compounds.
All of which brings us to the issue of genetics -- the family histories of patients with pancreatic cancer, which would be indicative of possible genetic factors for the disease. And yes, some limited evidence of familial predisposition has been found -- but more frequently for endocrine than for exocrine tumors. (Note: endocrine tumors account for only about 10% of pancreatic cancers.) That means that for 90% of pancreatic cancers, there is no indication of any kind that genetic predisposition plays any significant role.
The bottom line is that the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that the cause of most cases of pancreatic cancer is not hereditary -- that genetics is not a primary causative factor. And yet, genetics is the area of research your money has just funded -- not to mention, in all likelihood, a chunk of the $100 million raised by Stand Up to Cancer. That's got to give you a warm fuzzy feeling.
Okay, that's just one part of the studies. What about brain cancer? Do the results make more sense when it comes to glioblastomas? And the answer is: not really.
The statistics on brain cancer are almost as grim as for pancreatic cancer. Approximately 17,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with primary brain cancer each year and nearly 13,000 die of the disease. The annual incidence of primary brain cancer in children is about 3 per 100,000. Secondary brain cancer occurs in 20--30% of patients whose original cancer has metastasized, and incidence increases with age. In the United States, about 100,000 cases of secondary brain cancer are diagnosed each year. But as bad as that sounds, it's getting worse. The incidence of brain cancer is increasing -- dramatically.
In one study, a new analysis of data collected by the National Cancer Institute's nationwide cancer surveillance program, researchers at the National Institute on Aging in Bethesda, Md., have determined that among people over the age of 75, the incidence of brain tumors more than doubled from 1968 to 1985, the last year for which statistics are available. In 1985, incidence rates for persons aged 75-79, 80-84, and 85 years of age and over were up 187%, 394%, and 501%, respectively, over rates in 1973/1974 -- or by as much as 23 percent a year.
Further confirming these results, several years ago, scientists at the National Research Council in Washington, the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and other institutions compared mortality figures from about 1968 to 1987 for the United States, Britain, Italy, France, West Germany and Japan. They found that among people 65 and older, deaths from brain tumors rose in all nations by some 200 percent for the period.
''There's a stunning increase in mortality'' from brain tumors, said Dr. Devra Lee Davis, an author of the paper. ''It holds true for all countries, a very sharp increase in a relatively short period of time.''
So once again, as with pancreatic cancer, the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that the cause of most cases of brain cancer is not hereditary -- that genetics is not a primary causative factor. Genetics cannot account for increased incidence rates of up to 500% in just 20 years. And yet, genetics is the area of research your money has just funded -- not to mention, once again in all likelihood, a chunk of the $100 million raised by Stand Up to Cancer. So yet again, more warm fuzzies.
Oh, did I mention cell phones as a possible cause? I probably shouldn't go there. The last time I posted a blog on the topic, a number of people let me know, with great passion, that the only way they'd give up their cell phones is if someone pried them from their cold, dead hands -- which is looking more likely all the time.
The studies on prostate cancer are of a different type, but also point to environmental and dietary factors as being its chief cause, not genetics.
First, there's the study out of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine and the University of Wisconsin, which indicates that men who have too much calcium in their bloodstreams may have an increased risk of fatal prostate cancer.
According to Gary G. Schwartz, Ph.D., associate professor of cancer biology and of epidemiology and prevention at Wake Forest, the study showed, "That men in [the] upper range of the normal distribution of serum calcium subsequently have an almost three-fold increased risk for fatal prostate cancer."
It should be pointed out that serum calcium ordinarily is tightly regulated by the parathyroid hormone, so in normal situations there is little variation in an individual's serum calcium over time regardless of diet or supplementation. So where is the calcium coming from? Two possibilities stand out:
Hormonal imbalance brought on by stress can easily throw calcium blood levels out of whack. For example, a very damaging effect of adrenal dysfunction is excessive cortisol production. Excessive cortisol production causes an increased calcium mobilization from the bones and into the bloodstream. Hormonal imbalances can also be caused by exposure to chemical estrogens, which can throw the parathyroid out of whack. A high acid diet forces your body to pull calcium into the bloodstream to buffer the high acidity since your blood cannot tolerate pH changes. What comprises a high acid diet? Meat, dairy, cooked grains, sugar, alcohol, sodas, and most fruit juices. Hmm. Does that sound like anyone you know? And there are more studies
Other studies released this month include one out of the University of Rochester Medical center that found that men who regularly take aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have lower serum PSA levels and a study funded by the National Health Service Health Technology Assessment Program that found that taller men are more likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer. Interestingly enough, although this might appear to have a genetic link, the researchers did not think so. They speculated that is more likely the result of childhood environmental factors such as diet and nutrition.
In any case, the key point is that once again, as with brain cancer and pancreatic cancer, all of these studies point away from genetics as the primary factor in causing prostate cancer, and yet again to environmental and dietary factors.
So what have we learned about cancer and our health options?
Look, I don't mean to be a killjoy here. Ultimately, I believe that genetic research will produce some major health advancements for humanity -- but that day is not today. Significant genetic treatments for cancer are not on the immediate horizon. And besides, why would you want to wait. We already know how to reduce your risk of cancer by some 90% overnight by working with your immune system -- your body's normal safeguard against cancer, regardless of genetics.
Again, hats off to Katie Couric and the other news anchors for their Stand Up to Cancer telethon that raised $100 million for research. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that $100 million will produce much value -- not, at least, as long as it continues to fund research that looks in the wrong place. Only about 10% of all cancers are strongly related to genetics. Fully 90% of all cancers are connected with diet, lifestyle, exposure to toxins, and a compromised immune system -- all things we can exercise control over...now!
PS: For more on cancer (what causes it, how to prevent it, and even how to potentially reverse it), check out my talk, Cancer: the Big Lie (http://www.jonbarron.org/audio/audio_files/TalkR15.mp3). It was recorded some six years ago -- and other than some minor adjustments on the statistics, it's as spot on as ever. It's also free. And it's available now.
Mark Twain quoted Benjamin Disraeli, the prime minister of England, as saying: “There are three kinds of lies in the world: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” That statement is even more true (and dangerous) when applied to medical studies. One example is the recent Oxford University study published in The Lancet which touts the effectiveness of today’s conventional cancer treatments. It supports the use of chemotherapy and states that women who used tamoxifen for five years reduced the breast cancer death rate by one-third.
Very impressive, until you realize that you’ve just been “statistic-ed.”
As presented, the newspaper cites studies proving the efficacy of tamoxifen that consistently read something like “The National Cancer Institute’s Breast Cancer Prevention Trial reported that there was a 49 percent decrease in the incidence of breast cancer in women who took tamoxifen for five years.”
That’s stunning. If your doctor told you that using tamoxifen cut your chances of getting breast cancer by 49%, would there be any question in your mind on whether or not to use it? Not in mine – at least until I talked to Benjamin Disraeli. If you look past the statistics, the truth is that according to the study, your odds of getting breast cancer without using tamoxifen was only 1.3%, and with tamoxifen it dropped to .68%. That represents a 49% difference between the two numbers (as cited), but just a little over one-half of one-percent difference (.62%) in real terms.
And for that meager sixth-tenths of one-percent difference, we now need to consider that tamoxifen can cause cancer of the uterus, ovaries, and gastrointestinal tract. A study at Johns Hopkins found that tamoxifen promotes liver cancer, and in 1996, a division of the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, declared tamoxifen a Group I carcinogen for the uterus. In another abruptly curtailed NCI study, 33 women that took tamoxifen developed endometrial cancer, 17 suffered blood clots in the lungs, 130 developed deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in major blood vessels) and many experienced confusion, depression, and memory loss. Other permanent damage includes osteoporosis, retinal damage, corneal changes, optic nerve damage, and cataracts. In short, the half percent of those who received a reduction in breast cancer by using tamoxifen traded it for an increase in other cancers and life threatening diseases. A half percent in real world terms is vastly different from the 49% “statistic-ed” improvement cited in the studies – and hardly worth the increased risk.
Once you look behind the numbers, is it any wonder the “war on cancer” continues to fail so miserably? The problem is that the doctors themselves believe the statistically manipulated numbers they feed to the public. And yet, the general trend is undeniable. Things are not getting better. The incidence rate of cancer has exploded from around one in five hundred in 1900 to approximately one in two today. And for every statistical blip downward in selected cancers such as breast and prostate cancer (after years of soaring incidence and mortality, mind you), there is a significant jump in “new,” even more deadly cancers such as liver, pancreatic, and lymph cancers.
Chemotherapy: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
For those of you who are new to the debate, let me explain some of the pros and cons of chemotherapy. Unfortunately, there is a high probability that you or someone you know will have to face the decision on how to treat cancer.
Before we get into how chemotherapy works, it’s probably worth a little digression to talk about its history. The first drug used for cancer chemotherapy was not originally intended for that purpose. Mustard gas was used as a chemical warfare agent during World War I and was studied further during World War II. During a military operation in World War II, a group of people were accidentally exposed to mustard gas and were later found to have very low white blood cell counts. It was reasoned that an agent that damaged the rapidly growing white blood cells might have a similar effect on cancer. Therefore, in the 1940s, several patients with advanced lymphomas (cancers of certain white blood cells) were given the drug by vein, rather than by breathing the irritating gas. Their improvement, although temporary, was remarkable. That experience started researchers studying other substances that might have similar effects against cancer.
Chemotherapy is used to kill cancer cells anywhere in the body, including cells that have broken off from a main tumor and traveled through the blood or lymph systems to other parts of the body. Many doctors have successfully slowed cancer cells by using chemotherapy after a tumor has been surgically removed . How does it work? Chemotherapy drugs are cytotoxic, meaning they poison the cells in our body that multiply the most rapidly, which is how the majority of cancer cells perform. So, if your cancer cells are rapidly multiplying, you may find chemotherapy effective.
The major disadvantage to chemotherapy is that the drugs don’t just kill the cancer cells that are dividing, but any dividing cell, including the multitude of healthy cells all over the body caught in the act of dividing. For those whose “healthy” cells are multiplying faster than the cancer cells, there isn’t even a theoretical chance of success. This explains why chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to 4% of cancers – primarily, Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma.
For the majority of people who have healthy cell division, you may end up killing the body before the cancer. For instance, there is a high probability that certain fast multiplying immune system cells including our T and B lymphocytes will also die, contributing to our body's inability to fight opportunistic diseases that arise as a result of the treatment. Other cells that grow fast are cells of the bone marrow that produce blood cells, cells in the stomach and intestines, and cells of the hair follicles, which is why a patient’s hair usually falls out.
In either event, the drug’s objective is to poison the system—creating horrendous pain and illness often worse than the disease itself. The toxins attack healthy, dividing blood cells and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsions causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. Some drugs can slough the entire lining of the intestines. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. The brain loses memory. The hair falls out. Eyesight and hearing are impaired. The kidneys are damaged. Sores appear in the mouth and throat. The body bleeds and bruises easily and can’t fight infections. Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agony for the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer rather than to continue treatment. It makes you wonder how most people die when they report the rising cancer death statistics.
It's especially telling when a number of surveys over the years show that most chemotherapists would not take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their families. Today’s chemotherapy drugs are the most toxic substances ever put deliberately into the human body. In fact, personnel who administer these drugs take great precautions to avoid exposure. The Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, a standard reference for medical personnel, offers strict warnings for handling cytotoxic agents and sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical personnel who work around the chemicals. In addition, increased concerns regarding mutagenesis and teratogenesis [deformed babies] continue to be investigated.
The sad part is that we accept these types of results, feeling that we have no choice in the matter. We submissively believe the medical community’s statement that chemotherapy “improves quality of life” even though most doctors find this absurd. Some doctors, such as Dr. Ulrich Abel, go so far as to state that there is no scientific evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend the lives of patients suffering from 80% of all cancers.
Bottom line, orthodox chemotherapy is toxic, immunosuppressant, and carcinogenic. As death rates keep going up, so why then do the majority of doctors and oncologists still push chemotherapy?
First, effective cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDA defines an "effective" drug as one that achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28 days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life. So, when a doctor says "effective" to a cancer patient, it does not mean it cures cancer—only temporary shrinks a tumor. (Sound like Disraeli again?)
Secondly, most doctors just don’t know what else to do. They face patients that they feel have hopeless conditions and justify the continual loss of life brought about by these drugs because it’s the only alternative they know (along with surgery and radiation). They refer to this stage not as therapy, but as experimentation, which is better than telling a patient there is no hope. As for oncologists, they have devoted countless hours to the understanding of poisonous, deadly compounds and how to administer these drugs. This too is all they know. They all want to help cancer patients, but they don’t have other options in their arsenal – certainly not options that come from outside the medical fraternity.
Third, and commonly seen in all major industries, as long as drug companies and the cancer industry see profits, there will be little motivation to change. It is not surprising that the cancer industry turns over in excess of $200 billion annually. Or, that the few who sought alternative cancer methods encountered armed raids, loss of licensure, professional smearing, and ostracism. One such person is Dr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, who stated at a recent National Institute of Health meeting, about chemotherapy: "[It's] a marvelous opportunity for rampant deceit. So much money is there to be made that ethical principles can be overrun sometimes in a stampede to get at physicians and prescribers."
And last but not least, in a small percentage of cases, chemotherapy absolutely does help – which is not to say that other approaches wouldn't work as well, or better. But it is, in fact, this minimal success rate that fuels the continued use of the therapy. Based on these occasional successes, doctors will often pressure patients to opt for the therapy even when it has little chance of success in their particular cases.
Also, it is worth noting that the benefits of chemo vary widely from cancer to cancer – sometimes improving "short-term" survivability by as much as 50%; but also, in many cases, by 1% or less. For example, the statistical chances of chemotherapy being helpful with lung cancer are less than 1 in 100, and yet doctors often pressure their patients into utilizing, what is in this case, a non-effective and debilitating treatment. And on top of everything else, the success rate for chemotherapy is highly age dependent. It is much more likely to be effective with the young who have strong immune systems, dropping to about 50/50 by age 50. And by 50/50, I don't mean that it's effective 50% of the time, but rather that it's a 50/50 call as to whether doing chemo or nothing at all is the better option in terms of survivability. And by age 55, you're statistically better off doing nothing rather than subjecting yourself to chemo.
Keep in mind that whatever else you can say about chemotherapy, no one can ever claim it addresses the cause of cancer. It merely attacks the symptom. No one, even the most jaded doctor in the world, claims that people get cancer because they’re suffering from a chemotherapy deficiency.
Obviously, there is only so much we can do with the current state of affairs and we should not expect the industry to change any time soon. However, we do not have to sit on the sidelines when it comes to our personal health and wellness due to ignorance, money, and bureaucrats.
Solution -- Take an Active Role in Natural Health
I always encourage people to take an active role in their health, and this is even more important when you are dealing with a catastrophic illness such as cancer. Ask as many questions as you can and research your specific type of cancer to understand both the conventional and non-conventional success rates for specific remedies. Look for strategies that strengthen the body, not weaken it, allowing the body to heal itself. I also encourage you to read my book, Lessons from the Miracle Doctors, which gives many suggestions for those fighting cancer as well as preventative measures everyone should take to avoid cancer in the first place. (You can download a free copy at www.jonbarron.org. And while you’re there, be sure to check out the newsletter archives.) And, finally, be careful what you read or what conclusion you draw from any study or statistic. Know the motive behind the study. Don’t be “statistic-ed.” In the end, we are the ones responsible for our health and our bodies. It is only prudent to look at the details.
And one final note. There is more hope than you can possibly imagine in terms of dealing with cancer. There are at least 18 different peoples on Earth today who do not suffer from cancer – many of these cannot record even one victim of the disease in their entire culture. Do genetics play a role? Quite probably. But when entire cultures are cancer free, it makes the environmental and lifestyle connections undeniable – especially when those cancer rates change once they move from their original environment. That means that for most of us, we can dramatically improve our odds when it comes to getting cancer in the first place, or curing it if we do get it simply by modifying our environmental and lifestyle circumstances. ---
Beware of Radiation -- by Talia Miller, Breast Cancer Recovery Coach New Test For Breast Cancer -- No False Negatives or Positives http://www.beating-cancer-gently.com/123nl.html Once you have had cancer, you have proven that your body is susceptible to it and you must treat it as a chronic potential problem. It you relax your regimen that got you healed, it will almost certainly come back. This is no cause for fear. It just should convince you that changing your eating and supplement habits permanently is absolutely necessary to prevent recurrence.
The AMA at its worst Hoxsey: How Healing Becomes a Crime Suppressing cancer research Harry Hoxsey's treatment for cancer was endorsed by senators, judges and even some doctors. Two federal courts upheld its therapeutic value and by the 1950s his clinics were found in seventeen states. It spite of this, the AMA targeted him and drove him out of business. If a low cost, reliable treatment for cancer were discovered outside the medical establishment would the general public ever find out about it? Watch this film and find out: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/69.html
It's starting in Canada After 10,000 plus years of safe, effective, affordable botanical medicine, the federal governments of various countries have decided that enough is enough. With the "encouragement" of the white collar criminals in the pharmaceutical industry, the white collar criminals in government are drafting new laws to "protect" the Canadian public from herbs and food supplements. Herbs will be put in the same class and regulated the same way as pharmaceutical products. Estimates are this will result in 70% of currently available natural health products removed from the market. And your backyard garden? You may not be permitted to grow herbs for medicinal use any more. Too dangerous without government regulation to protect you, don't you know. Impossible you say? DuPont and others succeeded in turning a plant that provided an essential industrial raw material - hemp - into an outlaw in order to eliminate it as competition for its own products. The drug companies can do it to mint and camomile too. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/408.html
If you live in Canada, please see this page and join forces to stop the government ban of all vitamin & herbal supplements: http://www.stopc51.com/
This plant has already been outlawed Demon Marijuana Grown worldwide for millenia as a source of food, medicine, fiber and paper, hemp was banned for the first time in human history in 1938 by the United States. The original impetus for outlawing the hemp plant came from the DuPont and Mellon families with an important assist from William Randolf Hearst. Hearst owned timber rights for millions of acres of forest land, the raw material for newsprint. DuPont had patents for numerous synthetic products that hemp is competitive with. Harry Anslinger, the virulent racist who headed the Bureau of Narcotics and spear-headed the campaign against "demon marijuana" was married to the niece of Richard Mellon of the Mellon banking family. For those who believe that the world is run by and for the benefit of a few interlocking families, this episode provides evidence for that position. Enforcing marijuana laws and jailing offenders is a multi-billion dollar a year business that employs tens of thousands of people. Hemp may soon be joined by hundreds of other plants: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/409.html
German Cancer Clinic book A U.S. President refused America's outdated cancer treatments -- Here's where he went instead. Americans would be shocked if they knew that President Reagan, while still in the White House, turned his back on American cancer treatments. He secretly sneaked off to a German clinic and breakthrough treatments labeled "quackery" in the U.S. (maybe because they cost a fraction of American treatments). Suzanne Somers, Cher, William Holden and Anthony Quinn are among the celebrities who have gone to clinics you'll discover in this English-language guide to German cancer doctors and treatments: http://www.germancancerbreakthrough.com/B/
Daily Dose - Vioxx nightmare won't end The Aim Of Many Clinical Studies Is To Boost Profits For A Pharmaceutical Company, Not to Prove Safety or Effectiveness From: WC Douglass <email@example.com> September 15, 2008
Just in case you might be thinking that I bash Big Pharma too hard and too often, there's a new twist in the awful Vioxx story. Back in 2004, Vioxx was withdrawn from the market because it was linked to increased incidence of heart attack and stroke. The FDA estimates that in the five years Vioxx was on the market, its use caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks ? of which as many as 40 percent were probably fatal.
And now, four years after Vioxx was pulled from the market, the story just keeps getting worse.
According to Merck internal memos uncovered by lawyers working on the Vioxx lawsuits, one of the "studies" that helped establish Vioxx as a superior painkiller wasn't a real study at all, but was, in fact, a stealth Merck marketing strategy.
A memo from two top Merck executives even nominated the "study" for one of the company's internal marketing awards!
When Vioxx was about to launch in 1999, Merck started something called the ADVANTAGE study. "ADVANTAGE" ostensibly being an acronym for "Assessment of Differences between Vioxx and Naproxen to Ascertain Gastrointestinal tolerability and Effectiveness."
I can think of a shorter acronym they should have used: B.S.
Merck's actual motive for the study had nothing to do with a further clinical vetting of Vioxx. It was nothing more than a marketing tool designed to get doctors and patients familiar with the drug. The internal Merck memo summed up the study's goals this way: "The objectives were to provide product trial among a key physician group to accelerate uptake of Vioxx as the second entrant in a highly competitive new class."
You'll notice, there's not one word in this "objective" about finding out if the drug is actually safe for consumers.
My thoughts on this? FINALLY. For years, many have suspected Big Pharma companies of conducting "seeding" or marketing studies where the "clinical trial" was conducted by pharmaceutical company marketers rather than independent doctors. But there's been no smoking gun? until now.
Dr. Kevin Hill, a staff psychiatrist at McLean Hospital in Massachusetts who is working as a paid consultant for lawyers representing plaintiffs in the Vioxx suits, was indignant at the discovery, and wondered how it could impact future clinical trials. "ADVANTAGE was marketing framed as scientific research," he said. "I don't think people would be willing to [risk side effects] if they knew that the aim of a clinical trail was to boost profits for a pharmaceutical company."
What's even more depressing is the fact that the dummy ADVANTAGE trial worked like a charm for Merck. In the five years Vioxx was on the market, it reaped annual profits as high as $2.5 billion.
So now what? The editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggest that the institutional review boards that run clinical studies should simply ask whether a new trial is a seeding study, especially when a new experiment has all the hallmarks of a possible marketing stunt.
But what's the point in asking for the truth from companies who seem to be in the business of lying? Apparently, the JAMA editors lack my kind of cynicism.