Because chemotherapy is only effective in 2% of cancers in addition to reducing remaining quality and length of life, and over 50% of those few who are supposedly "cured" by chemotherapy develop secondary cancers from the chemo and biopsies, according to Ralph Moss (http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Chemotherapy-Ralph-W-Moss/dp/188102525X). I would not use it, but since many of you do, I have listed below some information about supplements that  increase the effectiveness of the chemotherapy and/or radiation and reduce the side effects.

According to Dr. Rowen, killing malignant tumors is usually not difficult: the biggest challenge comes about afterward, to keep tumors from coming back once the patients leave the clinic and resume their normal lifestyles and diets. To prevent cancer's reoccurrence, one must keep the immune system strong with diet, lifestyle, some (not excessive) exercise, nutritional supplementation, and especially, a positive mental attitude. Some people mistakenly think that they need not maintain a very healthy diet and lifestyle to minimize getting cancer again if they choose conventional treatments (i.e., they think that the natural method is too much work), but it is just as important afterwards, no matter what method is used to initially get rid of the cancer -- also, the natural methods help reduce the side effects from conventional treatments and may help reduce secondary cancers caused by biopsies, chemotherapy and radiation.

According to Dr. Blaylock, "It's important to remember that secondary cancers are not recurrences of a previous cancer but entirely new cancers caused by the treatment. Most often, the secondary cancer is much more resistant to treatment than was the original cancer. Biopsies (including needle biopsies) also spread cancer in more than half of the cases."



How Chemo Causes Cancer To Grow
More Evidence that Chemo Makes Cancer Worse
http://www.cancerdefeated.com/more-evidence-that-chemo-makes-cancer-worse/2453/
http://hsionline.com/2013/12/18/Robbing-cancer-patients/
---

HSI e-Alert - Reckless use of chemo is robbing cancer patients
http://www.alternativenaturalremedies.com/news/reckless-use-of-chemo-is-robbing-cancer-patients.php
Dear Reader,

Two weeks ago, I told you about Sarah Hershberger, the 11-year-old Amish girl whose parents took her out of the country to get her treated for her cancer -- without chemo.

The mainstream media lit up with concern for the girl -- at the hands of these dangerous parents of hers.

How dare they risk her life by denying her chemo!

Are they kidding?!

In the past few years, we've discovered that chemo frequently causes secondary cancers, can actually FEED tumors, and that chemo traumatizes the brain for years.

And still, the mainstream wants to force this little girl -- and millions of others -- to take this dangerous "treatment" at all costs.

Now it turns out, "at all costs" may be exactly what doctors are thinking when they prescribe chemo.

Oncologists gone wild
Believe it or not, even with all the dangers and risks, mainstream medicine has decided it's okay to introduce off-label use of chemo.

Off-label use is essentially unregulated use. It means the FDA hasn't approved -- or even studied -- the drug for the use the doctor prescribes it for.

That's why this new information on chemo is so shocking.

Researchers followed prescribing records of 10 chemotherapy drugs. They found that oncologists prescribed the drugs off-label in nearly one-third of all cases!

That's outrageous!

Now, in many of those cases, doctors followed guidelines of the National Comprehensive Care Network. But as Reuters notes, some researchers have criticized NCCN for possible conflicts of interest. So this is a slippery set of guidelines, at best.

But then there's the "loose cannon" 10 percent.

That's right -- doctors are working on a hunch in 10% of these cases. And that's giving doctors the benefit of the doubt. In many instances, they prescribe chemo knowing the odds of success are nil.

But they probably think they can give the patient some hope and the payday isn't too shabby.

So -- 10 percent -- if you're thinking that doesn't sound like much, hang on to your hat. In the course of one year, that meager 10 percent accounted for $2.5 billion in medical bills!

One researcher told Reuters that cancer patients and their doctors are "willing to try things where there isn't as much data as you would like." She says they're, "looking for anything with a benefit."

ANYthing? Well...no.

Most oncologists would never even consider the benefits of intravenous ascorbic acid. IAA has plenty of successful cancer case studies to back up its use. But mainstreamers dismiss it as quackery.

And yet, these doctors are willing to risk billions of their patients' dollars on brutal chemotherapies that don't even have case study support.

So... Who's a quack now?

Jenny Thompson, Director of Health Science Institute, HSI e-Alert
Sources:
“Prevalence of Off-Label Use and Spending in 2010 Among Patent-Protected Chemotherapies in a Population-Based Cohort of Medical Oncologists” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Published online ahead of print, 2/19/13, jco.ascopubs.org

“Almost one-third of chemotherapy used ‘off-label’” Andrew M. Seaman, Reuters Health, 2/19/13, reuters.com

- See more at:
http://hsionline.com/2013/12/18/Robbing-cancer-patients/
---

Why Cancer Patients Should Never Rely On Chemotherapy Alone

You probably know that conventional chemotherapy is very limited in what it can do. Most people now understand this. In cases of metastatic cancer (the kind that has spread to other parts of the body), the five-year success rate is in the order of less than 5% even in the best of hospitals. Is that because chemotherapy is so bad? I don't think so. I think there's another reason.

I think it is because conventional oncologists fail to properly combine their chemotherapy with natural treatments. These might include diet and nutrition, chelation therapy, herbal therapy, immune enhancement, hormone replacement, and detoxification. When doctors combine these "alternative" therapies with standard chemotherapy, the results are much better – more like 30%. A good example of how natural therapies can effectively work with chemotherapy was just recently published. It had to do with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). And the results were amazing.

CIPN is a side effect of many chemotherapy drugs. CIPN is a serious and disabling condition in which the patient's hands and feet feel numb and burn. This often leads to difficulty walking and handling objects. It is also a source of pain that interferes with sleep and often requires medications. When a patient has to deal with a difficult problem like metastatic cancer, one of the last things he needs is to have the additional problem of CIPN. But now it looks like there is a very effective way to decrease the chance of CIPN. And it is entirely natural.

The authors of the study searched through all of the published literature between 1973 and 2011. They were looking for placebo controlled studies that looked at whether or not taking vitamin E supplements could prevent CIPN. They found five such studies involving a total of 319 patients. The dose of vitamin E varied between 400 and 800 units per day. On average those patients taking the vitamin E reduced their chances of getting CIPN by 57%. The results were even better with cisplatin.

One of the worst chemotherapy drugs with respect to CIPN are the platin drugs. The most common platin drug is cisplatin. When the researchers looked at the effect of vitamin E on cisplatin alone, they discovered that the results were even better. On average it prevented CIPN 74% of the time.

Sometimes you will hear cancer doctors say that they don't want any of their patients taking vitamins because they might interfere with the chemotherapy. Studies have repeatedly shown that this is just not true. The researchers in this study were quick to point out that the only thing that vitamin E interfered with was the toxicity of the drugs. The efficacy remained the same.

If you or a loved one is getting chemotherapy, I highly recommend that you take 800 units of vitamin E per day. My favorite brand is an excellent form of completely natural vitamin E called Grace Unique E. This is especially true if the drugs you're taking are platin drugs. The most common platin drugs are cisplatin, carboplatin, and oxaliplatin.

Finding your Real Cures,

Frank Shallenberger, MD

REF:
Eum S, Choi HD, Chang MJ, et al. Protective effects of vitamin e on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2013 Apr;83(2):101-11.

Subscribe now to Dr. Shallenberger's Real Cures Newsletter and Get up to 19 Free Reports. See the following web page and subscription form:
How a Doctor Reversed Her Husband’s Alzheimer’s Disease in 37 Days (with coconut oil!)
http://www.realcuresletter.com/Offers/RC/RCHA12.htm
---

The Ultimate Cancer Survival Guide
http://hsionline.com/cancer-survival-guide/
Sign up for HSI's free health newsletter and receive their Ultimate Cancer Survival Guide free.
---


Radiation Support for Your Immune System: We are Under Invisible Siege (Part 1)
http://aircrap.org/radiation-support-immune-system/331187/
Radiation & Chemtrails Assaults: Additional Support for Your Immune System (Part 2)
http://consciouslifenews.com/radiation-chemtrails-assaults-additional-support-immune-system/116333/

UCLA Study Shows Radiation Treatment Makes Breast Cancer Worse, Natural Therapies Do Not
http://consciouslifenews.com/ucla-study-shows-radiation-treatment-makes-breast-cancer-worse-natural-therapies/1161982/
---

Cancer breakthrough: Probiotics may save patients from deadly chemotherapy; antibiotics may cause chemo to be fatal
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
http://www.naturalnews.com/z041449_chemotherapy_probiotics_antibiotics.html

(NaturalNews) If you or someone you love is facing the possibility of cancer or chemotherapy, make sure they read this story. Breakthrough new science conducted at the University of Michigan and about to be published in the journal Nature reveals that intestinal health is the key to surviving chemotherapy.

The study itself is very difficult for laypeople to parse, however, so I'm going to translate into everyday language while also offering additional interpretations of the research that the original study author is likely unable to state due to the nutritional censorship of medical journals and universities, both of which have an anti-nutrition bias.

The upshot is this: A clinical study gave mice lethal injections of chemotherapy that would, pound for pound, kill most adult human beings, too. The study authors openly admit: "All tumors from different tissues and organs can be killed by high doses of chemotherapy and radiation, but the current challenge for treating the later-staged metastasized cancer is that you actually kill the [patient] before you kill the tumor." (See sources below.)

Chemotherapy is deadly. It is the No. 1 cause of death for cancer patients in America, and the No. 1 side effect of chemo is more cancer. But certain mice in the study managed to survive the lethal doses of chemo. How did they do that? They were injected with a molecule that your own body produces naturally. It's production is engineered right into your genes, and given the right gene expression in an environment of good nutrition (meaning the cellular environment), you can generate this substance all by yourself, 24 hours a day.

The substance is called "Rspo1" or "R-spondon1." It activates stem cell production within your own intestinal walls, and these stem cells are like super tissue regeneration machines that rebuild damaged tissues faster than the chemotherapy can destroy them, thereby allowing the patient to survive an otherwise deadly does of chemo poison.

As the study showed, 50 - 75 percent of the mice who were given R-spondon1 survived the fatal chemotherapy dose!

The cancer industry needs to find a way to stop killing all their customers
The problem with the cancer industry today is that all the conventional cancer treatments keep killing the patients. This is bad for business. So the purpose of research like the R-spondon1 research mentioned here -- which was funded by a government grant -- is to find ways to keep giving patients deadly doses of high-profit chemotherapy without actually killing them. You slap a patient with a dose of R-spondon1 (sold at $50,000 a dose as a patented "drug," of course), dose 'em up with a fatal injection of chemotherapy, and then thanks to the R-spondon1 you get a repeat cancer customers instead of a corpse.

That's called "good business practices" in the cancer industry, which is so far best known for turning patients into body bags rather than actually curing cancer.

(Yes, there is a reason why most oncologists would never undergo chemotherapy themselves. They know it doesn't work on 98% of all cancers.)

Probiotics are likely the key to generating your own R-spondon1
Before I discuss why these findings are so important for followers of natural health and nutrition, let me first offer a disclaimer. The research mentioned here was conducted on mice, not humans, so it isn't full proof that the same mechanism works in humans. Nevertheless, the reason mice are used for such research is because they are nearly identical to humans in terms of biology, gene expression, endocrine system function and more.

Furthermore, even though this study used an injection of R-spondon1 as the "activator" of gene expression in endothelial cells of the intestinal lining, in truth your cells already possess the blueprint to produce R-spondon1 on their own. In fact, human intestines are coated with a layer of epithelial cells that are regenerated every 4-5 days in a healthy person. This is only possible through the activation and continued operation of intestinal stem cells, a normal function for a healthy human.

And what determines the health of those stem cells more than anything else? Their local environment which is predominantly determined by gut bacteria. If your gut bacteria are in balance, the gene expression of your epithelial cells is normal and healthy. If your gut bacteria are out of whack, so to speak, the gene expression of your epithelial cells will be suppressed, thereby slowing or halting the regenerative potential of your intestinal cells. This is why people who have imbalanced intestinal flora also suffer from inflammatory intestinal conditions such as Crohn's, IBS and so on.

Thus, probiotics are a key determining factor in the ability of your intestines to maintain the appropriate gene expression for the very kind of rapid cellular regeneration that can help your body survive a fatal dose of chemotherapy.

Meat and dairy cause devastating gut flora imbalances that may increase susceptibility to chemotherapy drugs
This may also explain why people who eat large quantities of processed meat, cheese and dead, pasteurized dairy products -- especially when combined with starchy carbohydrates and processed sugars -- are far more likely to die from chemotherapy than people who eat more plant-based diets. (There isn't yet a source to substantiate this claim, but it's something I've noted from considerable personal observation. You may have noticed it too among your own family members who have undergone chemotherapy treatments. Those with the worst diets seem to have far higher fatality rates.)

Those who consume processed meat and dead dairy have their intestines filled with fiber-less, difficult-to-digest proteins that are putrefied and sit in the intestines for 2 - 5 days, typically. Dietary sugars and carbohydrates then feed the bacteria fermentation process, resulting in the rapid growth and replication of sugar-feeding bacteria that displace the kind of healthy flora which best protect intestinal wall cells.

This imbalance, I suggest, increases susceptibility to chemotherapy toxicity while simultaneously impairing the ability of the patient to absorb key nutrients that protect healthy cells from the toxicity of chemo drugs. This may explain why patients who heavily consume meat, cheese and dairy diets tend to die so easily when exposed to chemotherapy.

But there's something even more alarming about all this that everyone needs to know...

Antibiotics may also set you up to be killed by chemo
Although the research did not directly address this question, its findings seem to indicate that the kind of gut bacteria "wipeout" caused by antibiotics could prove fatal to a chemotherapy patient.

This is especially worrisome because many cancer patients are simultaneously prescribed antibiotics as they undergo chemotherapy. This could be a death sentence in disguise. While neither the antibiotics nor the chemo directly kill the patient, the combination of sterilized gut bacteria and highly-toxic chemotherapy drugs could multiply the toxicity and prove fatal. The death certificate, however, will say the patient died from "cancer," not from the chemotherapy which is usually the actual cause of death.

And yet, every single day in America, patients who are taking antibiotics are subjected to multiple courses of chemotherapy. This may quite literally be a death sentence for those patients.

There's also a self-fulfilling death spiral at work in all this: following the first round of chemotherapy, many patients suffer from weakened immune system that result in symptomatic infections. Physicians respond to this by prescribing antibiotics, resulting in the patient undergoing subsequent rounds of chemotherapy with "wiped out" gut flora. So the chemo causes the problem in the first place, and then the response to the problem by western doctors makes the next round of chemo fatal. This is a self-fulfilling death spiral of failed medicine.

Oncologists seem to have no awareness whatsoever of the importance of gut bacteria in allowing patients to protect their own healthy cells from the devastating effects of chemotherapy drugs. Many oncologists, in fact, actively discourage their patients from taking any sort of supplements during chemotherapy out of an irrational, anti-scientific fear that such supplements may "interfere" with the chemo and make the treatment fail.

This is one of the many ways in which oncologists get cancer patients killed.

Takeaway points from this article:
*  New research shows that a substance generated by intestinal stem cells allows subjects to survive an otherwise fatal dose of toxic chemotherapy.

*  Healthy gene expression of intestinal cells allows them to naturally produce protective molecules that support and boost cell regeneration.

*  Probiotics may protect and support the intestinal stem cells that help cancer patients survive toxic chemotherapy. (More studies needed to explore this and document the impact.)

*  Antibiotics may be a death sentence when followed by chemotherapy.

*  Oncologists need to consider the risks and benefits of postponing chemotherapy in patients who are simultaneously taking antibiotics. The combination may be deadly. Conversely, they need to consider the benefits of encouraging chemotherapy patients to take probiotic supplements before beginning chemotherapy treatment.

Sources for this article include:
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/21613-digest-this-cure-for-cancer-may-live-in-our-intestines

http://science.naturalnews.com/2007/2940322_R_spondin1_a_novel_intestinotrophic_mitogen_ameliorates_experimental_colitis_in.html

http://science.naturalnews.com/2009/2043215_Stem_cells_self_renewal_and_differentiation_in_the_intestinal_epithelium.html
---

Interview with Dr. Russell Blaylock on devastating health effects of MSG, aspartame and excitotoxins
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
http://www.naturalnews.com/z020550_excitotoxins_MSG.html

Mike: I'm here with Dr. Russell Blaylock, and I'd like to explore some of the more advanced aspects of some of the things you are working on. Dr. Blaylock, I think readers know the basics of both MSG and aspartame, but can you review what you've already written about excitotoxins?
Dr. Russell Blaylock: I have three books. The first one is the excitotoxin book, "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills," and the latest one is "Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life." The third one is "Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients," which is directed at nutritional treatments for cancer. It contains some material about aspartame and MSG.

Excitotoxins have been found to dramatically promote cancer growth and metastasis. In fact, one aspartame researcher noticed that, when cancer cells were exposed to aspartame, they became more mobile, and you see the same effect with MSG. It also causes a cancer cell to become more mobile, and that enhances metastasis, or spread. These MSG-exposed cancer cells developed all of these pseudopodians and started moving through tissues, which is one of the earlier observations from cancer.

When you increase the glutamate level, cancer just grows like wildfire, and then when you block glutamate, it dramatically slows the growth of the cancer. Researchers have done some experiments in which they looked at using glutamate blockers in combination with conventional drugs, like chemotherapy, and it worked very well. It significantly enhanced the effectiveness of these cancer drugs.

Mike: Wasn't there some research that came out recently that supports all this by establishing a correlation between leukemia and aspartame?

Dr. Blaylock: Yes. This Italian study was very well done. It was a lifetime study, which is very important with these toxins. They fed animals aspartame throughout their lives and let them die a natural death. They found a dramatic and statistically significant increase in the related cancers of lymphoma and leukemia, along with several histological types of lymphomas, which is of interest because H.J. Roberts had written an article saying that there was a significant increase in the primary lymphoma of the brain.

When you look it up in the neurosurgical literature, there is a rather significant rise in the incidents of what used to be a rare tumor. We're seeing a lot more of the primary lymphoma of the brain, which is a little different than lymphomas you see elsewhere. When you look back at the original studies done by the G.D. Searle company, they found lymphomas as well as primary brain tumors and tumors of multiple organs. All of this correlation shows that we've got a powerful carcinogenic substance here. It is either acting as a co-carcinogen or a primary carcinogen. Most likely, it's the formaldehyde breakdown product.

What the Italian study found is that if you take these same animals and expose them to formaldehyde in the same doses, they developed the same leukemias and lymphomas. If you look back at the Troker Study conducted in Spain a couple of years ago, what they found was when they radiolabeled the aspartame, they could actually see formaldehyde binding to the DNA, and it produced both single and double strand DNA breakage.

We know that when formaldehyde binds to DNA, it's very difficult to remove it. It will stay there for long periods of time. What that means is if you just drink a single diet cola today, or sweeten something with NutraSweet, you're accumulating damage every day. Eventually, you're going to produce this necessary pattern of DNA damage to initiate the cancer, and once you develop the cancer, the aspartic acid component of aspartame will make the cancer grow very rapidly. You've got a double effect; it's causing the cancer, and it's making the cancer move very rapidly.

Mike: Given all this evidence, how has the industry managed to suppress this information and keep this chemical legal in the food supply?

Dr. Blaylock: Donald Rumsfeld was the one who pushed a lot of this through, when he was in the chairmanship of the G.D. Searle company, NutraSweet. He got it approved through the regulatory process, but once it was approved, the government didn't want to admit that they had made a mistake. They just continued to cover it up, like the fluoride thing and the milk industry.

You're not going to criticize milk in the media, because they are smart enough to advertise in newspapers, magazines, health magazines and journals. They have all the media outlets covered. The only place that they don't have covered is talk radio and the internet. The health blogs can tell the truth.

No matter how much a newspaper wants to tell the truth, they're not going to do it. This is the kind of pressure these people are under. Even if you have a good writer who wants to write the story, his editor is going to override him and prevent it or water it down considerably. You see this in journals like the Journal of Clinical Nutrition or College Nutrition. Look at who funds them: The Monsanto Company, and they used to be sponsored by G.D. Searle. They're not going to want to put articles in their journal that will infuriate their primary source of income. Even medical and nutrition journals are controlled by these people.

Mike: It's the unholy alliance between the scientific community and big business.

Dr. Blaylock: Right. Another big scandal concerning the research is something new we found. We discovered that outside of the brain, there are numerous glutamate receptors in all organs and tissues. The entire GI tract, from the esophagus to the colon, has numerous glutamate receptors. The entire electrical conducting system of a heart is replete with all sorts of glutamate receptors. The lungs, the ovaries, all the reproductive systems and sperm itself, adrenal glands, bones and even calcification are all controlled by glutamate receptors. They act and operate exactly like the glutamate receptors in the brain.

So, when you're consuming MSG, the level of glutamate in the blood can rise as high as 20-fold. You get very high glutamate levels in the blood after eating a meal containing MSG. You're stimulating all of the glutamate receptors. That's why some people get explosive diarrhea, because it stimulates the receptors in the esophagus and small bowel. Others may develop irritable bowel, or if they have irritable bowel, it makes it a lot worse. If they have reflux, it makes that a lot worse. The thing about the cardiac conduction system glutamate receptors is this may explain the rise in sudden cardiac death.

What you see in almost all these cases is low magnesium. When the magnesium level is low, the glutamate receptors become hypersensitive, and so people -- athletes in particular, if they are not supplementing with magnesium -- are prone to sudden cardiac death, because of the glutamate receptors. If they eat a meal or something that contains glutamate or drink a diet cola before practice, it will produce such intense cardiac irritability, they'll die of sudden cardiac death. We know the sudden cardiac death is due to two things: Most commonly arrhythmia and cardio artery spasm. Both of which can be produced by glutamate.

Mike: Of course, that death certificate doesn't say they died from MSG.

Dr. Blaylock: No, and it's not going to, because the admitting physician doesn't know the first thing about any of this research. They've never heard of it. In fact, most cardiologists I've spoken with have never heard of this. They didn't know there were glutamate receptors throughout the electrical conduction system and in the heart muscle itself. You have a million patients in this country with arrhythmias that are life-threatening, and no one's telling them to avoid MSG and aspartame, yet it's a major source of cardiac irritability.

Mike: It's absolutely astounding. Now, didn't baby food manufacturers voluntarily remove this ingredient in the '70s?

Dr. Blaylock: They said they would, but they didn't. What they did is take out pure MSG and substitute it with hydrolyzed protein and caseinate. If you look at most toddler foods, they all have caseinate hydrolyzed protein broth, a significant source of glutamate.

Mike: We're destroying the nervous systems of these babies.

Dr. Blaylock: Exactly. Now, one of the things we're hearing a lot about is childhood obesity. One early observation with exitotoxicity is it makes animals grossly obese.

Mike: If they banned MSG, the drug companies would lose billions. Think about how much money they make treating all of these symptoms.

Dr. Blaylock: Here the government has all these big plans for controlling carbohydrate intake and controlling cereals and sugar and all that. Those things add to the problem, because what we find in MSG-exposed animals is that they prefer carbohydrates and sugars over protein-rich foods. That was one of the characteristics of this type of obesity. It's very difficult to exercise the weight off and almost impossible to diet it off. The appetite is out of control, but the metabolism is also out of control. They have metabolic syndrome on top of obesity, and so then you have a leptin insensitivity. In terms of obesity, they have a leptin insensitivity. It has been shown that you can produce leptin insensitivity very easily with MSG.

Mike: Is there any hope, in your view, that the world may wake up to this, and some day these ingredients may be banned?

Dr. Blaylock: It's possible, but you know, it's only going to be by public exposure, through the blogs and sites like yours. Once the public gets wind of it and is convinced that this is real, then there'll be an uproar over it. There's just a deception. The average consumer looks at it and goes, "Well, it says that it contains no MSG, so it must be okay."

Mike: I find a lot of the vegetarian foods, or so-called health foods, use yeast extracts.

Dr. Blaylock: The worst of the things they're doing are the soy extracts. Soybeans, naturally, have one of the highest glutamate levels of any of the plant products. When you hydrolyze it, you release the glutamate, and the soy protein isolates. The glutamate levels are higher than a lot of what you'll find in MSG products, yet the vegetarians are just eating it like it's the healthiest thing in the world. There was a 25-year study done, which looked at people who consumed the most soy products, and they followed them for 25 years and did serial CT scans. They found out that the people who consumed the most soybean products had the greatest incidence of dementia and brain atrophy.

These people are destroying their nervous system, and I talked to a lot of them who complained of severe migraine headaches. I said, "Get off the soy," and they do, and that migraine headache goes away. In addition, you have very high manganese levels, which is toxic to the very same part of the brain that produces Parkinson's. You've got a mixture of toxins with soy products, and the people think they are eating a healthy, nutritious product. It's destroying their nervous system, as well as other organs.

Mike: In this whole debate of soy versus cow's milk, we find misinformation in both camps.

Dr. Blaylock: I wouldn't recommend either one. If you're obsessed with milk, use goat's milk. It's closer to human milk, but I wouldn't recommend cow's milk or soy milk. I think people ought to avoid soy products as if they were poison.

Mike: Have you taken a lot of heat from NutraSweet or any of these other companies? I mean, have you been threatened with lawsuits or anything for going public with this information?

Dr. Blaylock: No, they leave me alone. I know too much. They've never bothered me. When I wrote the book, George Schwartz warned me, "Are you sure you want to write this book? If you do, they're just going to hound you to death." I said, "Yes, I want to write the book." So, I wrote it with one thing in mind: that they would not be able to refute it.

I researched every kind of way you can research and proved the toxicity of glutamate. They know I know that, because I had exchanged this in writing letters to some of their biggest defenders. They all realized that they couldn't answer my arguments. So they leave me alone. They're afraid that if it comes to a big standoff between me and them, they're going to lose.

Mike: They don't want this information going on the public record.

Dr. Blaylock: No, they don't want that. What they're doing is the old ploy of just ignoring and hoping it will go away. Of course, they put pressure on magazines, journals and newspapers not to interview me. They are trying to keep me in the shadows where they hope most people don't hear anything I have to say. It only works for so long.

Since I first wrote the book in 1995, proof supporting my viewpoint has increased enormously. The new material on peripheral glutamate receptors absolutely killed these people. They have no defense against that. The new information on the dramatic increase in cancer aggressiveness is something that they are terrified of.

Mike: Now you find these receptors outside the brain.

Dr. Blaylock: Right. Now, see, I proved it can enter the brain and that all that was a lie. What they've shown is that there are glutamate receptors on both sides of the blood brain barrier and that when you expose these receptors to glutamate, it opens up the blood brain barrier. So, the glutamate itself can open the barrier, and I list all these conditions. For instance, as you get older, your barrier becomes less competent. Almost all Alzheimer's patients have incompetent barriers. Heat stroke, seizures, autoimmune disorder and multiple sclerosis all are related with this active blood brain barrier.

You're talking about tens of millions of people, and they are out there gobbling up aspartame, MSG and other excitotoxins, and no one is telling them they are making their neurological conditions infinitely worse. I don't know how many seizure patients I've gotten off their medicines by just getting them off MSG and giving them magnesium. They quit having seizures. They were on maximum dosages of medications and still having seizures. Most neurologists and neurosurgeons that treat seizures are not aware of this.

Mike: It's not profitable to teach people how to avoid these ingredients.

Dr. Blaylock: If you look at the neuroscience literature, you can't pick up an article that's not about excitotoxicity. The hottest topic in neurosciences is glutamate receptors and excitotoxins.

Mike: Are they talking about it in the food or just as a chemical?

Dr. Blaylock: They won't mention food, but they talk about the glutamate receptor and what happens when you activate it.

Mike: What about the argument from food companies? I actually got into a debate with a veggie burger manufacturer, because I wrote an article that said their product had yeast extract in it, and yet the front label said, "100 percent all-natural ingredients." They said, "Well, glutamate appears naturally in other foods, like tomatoes and seaweed." What's your answer to that kind of defense?

Dr. Blaylock: Sure, but you see, all of these types of glutamate are bound. They're in oligosaccharides, polysaccharides. They are bound in amino acids groupings. They're not free amino acids. If you have it as a complex protein, you absorb it in your GI tract. In the GI tract, there are almost no free amino acids if you eat foods such as tomatoes. The level of free amino acids is nil; it's almost all absorbed as combined amino acids, and then it's only broken down in the liver, where it's released in very low concentrations that the body can deal with. It was never meant to have free amino acids in such high concentrations.

Well, when you hydrolyze them -- or you use yeast extract or enzymes to break down these various proteins into their free, released amino acids -- they're not natural any longer. What you've done is artificially release the amino acids in an unnatural way, and when they enter your GI tract, they are absorbed as free amino acids, then your blood level of that glutamic acid goes up significantly. As I said, it can go up as high as 20-fold, in some cases 40-fold. Your blood brain barrier is not constructed to handle such high levels of glutamate, because it doesn't naturally occur that way. It can handle the lower levels, but it can't handle these very high levels. So this argument, "Oh, it's natural," is just a lot of nonsense.

Mike: I do find that many manufacturers claim to be natural health companies, or health food companies, as a cover. They don't really follow that philosophy, because they'll use these ingredients.

Dr. Blaylock: Sure, and they use all kinds of backhanded ways.

Mike: Here's a practical question that's actually been burning in my head for about eight years: Is there anything that a person can take to block the absorption of MSG or glutamate as a defensive supplement?

Dr. Blaylock: Well, not necessarily to block it. You have other amino acids that can't compete for glutamic acid absorption. So that may be one way to help reduce the rate at which it would be absorbed.

Mike: Which aminos would those be?

Dr. Blaylock: Those would include leucine, isoleucine and lysine. They would compete for the same carrier system, so that would slow down absorption. There are a lot of things that act as glutamate blockers. You know, like silimarin, curcumin and ginkgo biloba. These things are known to directly block glutamate receptors and reduce excitotoxicity. Curcumin is very potent. Most of your flavonoids.

Magnesium is particularly important, because magnesium can block the MNDA glutamate type receptor. That's its natural function, so it significantly reduces toxicity. Vitamin E succinate is powerful at inhibiting excitotoxicity, as are all of your antioxidants. They found combinations of B vitamins also block excitotoxicity.

Mike: Let's talk about restaurants. I can't even eat at restaurants anymore at all, even those natural restaurants. They don't know they have MSG, because it's in one of the sauces or something.

Dr. Blaylock: I talked to them, and they said, "We get our food in these big crates, so there's no ingredients listed." It's the same thing for hospitals. I talked to a hospital dietitian and she said, "We can't tell because it comes in a crate, and they won't put the ingredients on it. It just says Salisbury steak or whatever."

They don't know, so it's hard for them to come out and tell their customers, "It's free of MSG." What they mean when they do say that is, "We didn't put any in there." Their white sauces are particularly high, as are their salad dressings, especially the ones that are pure oil. They all contain MSG.

Mike: Gravy mixes almost always have it, right?

Dr. Blaylock: Yes, they'll put hydrolyzed protein in it. They're selling taste. I mean, that's why a person prefers one restaurant to another. The food tastes better. Then they go home and feel sick and don't understand why.

One of the things that has been noticed about sudden cardiac death is that most that have it, other than athletes, die after eating a meal in a restaurant. I suspect it's because these people have low magnesium. They eat the meal, the glutamate stimulates the glutamate receptor in the cardiac conduction system as well as the hypothalamus, and they have a sudden cardiac death.

I was in a bookstore in Oxford, Miss. This young guy was there, and he just dropped and died. We took him to the hospital and tried to resuscitate him, and we couldn't. He was only 26 years old, and he had just eaten a big bowl of soup at one of the restaurants. Well, I talked to the person that was there, and he said they use a lot of hydrolyzed protein and MSG. People will eat a meal, have a soup before the meal, get this huge dose of MSG, and drop dead from the arrhythmia.

Mike: Could this explain some sudden infant deaths as well, you think?

Dr. Blaylock: Oh yeah. I mean, look at the popularity of these soy infant formulas. Mothers are crazy to give their kids soy formula. There is a lot of concern about it. There's concern about the fluoride level, the manganese level, and the glutamate levels in these soy infant formulas.

Mike: At Wal-Mart, I saw bottled water with added sodium fluoride. It's fluoride water.

Dr. Blaylock: Oh yes, it's for babies. They have a picture of a baby on it.

Mike: So, is there a website or a newsletter that people can visit or sign-up for?

Dr. Blaylock: I have a newsletter. It's www.BlaylockReport.com. It's by subscription, but you can buy individual newsletters. You don't have to get the whole year. It's issued monthly, for $3.98 a piece. It covers everything.

I try to cover a lot of common subjects and bring people up to date on the new thinking and research. I go through all the medical research. Usually I'll go through everything that conventional medicine has to offer. A lot of times they have good physiology, a good pathophysiology, but then, they switch over and start talking about drugs. I'll go through all the good pathophysiology material they have, and then I'll look up all the nutritional research that's been done that can correct those problems.

Mike: I see. Here's an off-the-wall question: If MSG and all its different versions, as well as aspartame, were outlawed tomorrow, what changes would we see in the next five years in terms of public health?

Dr. Blaylock: I think you'd see a significant drop in obesity and metabolic syndrome. You'd see a tremendous drop in certain cancers. You would certainly see a tremendous drop in the neurodegenerative diseases, and all of these diseases that are increasing expeditiously.

The neurodegenerative diseases are just exploding. Things that used to be rare, we're seeing all the time now. It's just frightening. And when you look through the neurosciences literature, they have no explanation. They don't know why it's increasing so rapidly, but it's because we have such a large combination of toxins. For instance, we know that cellular neurodegenerative diseases are connected to mercury, aluminum, pesticides and herbicides, and the way they produce brain damage is through an excitotoxic mechanism.

So, we are all exposed to those toxins, and then when you add MSG and excitotoxins to the food, you tremendously accelerate this toxicity. That's why we're seeing this explosion in neurodegenerative diseases; Alzheimer's and autism and ADD and Parkinson's -- all these things are increasing so enormously because we are exposed to carcinogenic toxicity from all these different things and this huge exposure to excitotoxins, which is the central mechanism.

This is what no one's been able to claim. You look at one person's report and they'll say, "Alzheimer's is related to mercury exposure," and then another one says, "No, it's related to pesticides," and yet another one says it something else, but they're all operating through the same mechanism. All of these things operate by increasing brain immune activity, and that activates excitotoxicity. So that's why all of them seem to be related, because they're all doing the same thing to the brain.

Mike: What about the American Diabetes Association? Given that aspartame actually promotes obesity, based a lot of the work you've uncovered, I find it curious that the ADA so strongly supports aspartame.

Dr. Blaylock: I don't, considering they receive huge amounts of money from the makers of aspartame. They fund their walk-a-thon and all that kind of stuff, so they get tremendous amounts of money from the makers of aspartame, and money talks.

Whether they're just deluding themselves and choosing not to believe it's toxic, refusing to look at the evidence, or they're just concerned about the money and could care less, I don't know, but when you look at the pathophysiology of diabetes and the effect of aspartame, it's absolute nonsense for anybody who has diabetes to be on aspartame. Particularly in a neurological aspect, it's going to make it a lot worse.

Mike: What about other popular chemical sweeteners like sucralose in Splenda?

Dr. Blaylock: There's really not a lot of research in those areas. They have some basic research, like with Splenda, showing thalamus suppression. If that holds up in other research, it's a major concern. If you're suppressing the thalamus gland in a child, that's the future of their immune function. You can increase everything from autoimmunity to producing immune-related diseases, to infections and cancers. The implications of thalamus gland suppression are enormous.

There have been reports of miscarriages associated with Splenda in experimental animals. The problem is, we don't have a lot of well-conducted studies on Splenda to ferret these things out, and they're not going to do them. The best way to protect your product is to never test it, or just to set up some phony test and report it in a journal that's friendly to your point of view.

That's what they did with certain vaccines. They did thousands of phony studies and waved them around, claiming nothing was found. You can design any study to find whatever you want. Particularly, you can design it to have negative results. That's the easiest thing to do.

Mike: We've got government health officials telling us mercury is safe and we've got big business telling us both aspartame and MSG are safe. It sounds like every poison in the food supply or in organized medicine is perfectly safe.

Dr. Blaylock: We did that with lead. When they first started questioning the safety of lead, the levels they said were safe were just enormously high, and then a mere 10 years later, suddenly we're finding out that lead is toxic at 10 micrograms. In the '60s, they were fighting over the same thing. The defenders of gasoline-added lead were saying lead wasn't toxic, except in extremely high doses. Then neuroscience literature was contradicting them, but nobody would listen. Finally, the weight of the evidence was so overwhelming that they found out extremely low concentrations of lead were toxic and accumulate in the brain.

It's the same thing with mercury. Mercury is even more poisonous than lead. An infant is getting 150 times the dose of mercury than the EPA safety limits. A hundred times higher than the FDA safety limits. Here's a little baby that's getting 150 times higher a dose than the FDA says is safe for an adult.

Mike: What are the big points readers to take away? What do you think they need to remember in order to protect themselves?

Dr. Blaylock: You need to abstain from all of these things. Aspartame is not a necessary nutrient, and neither is MSG. The weight of the evidence is overwhelming. If you want to avoid obesity, metabolic syndrome and cancer, and if you don't want to make your cancer more aggressive, then you need to stay away from these products.

The damage affects pregnant women, unborn babies and newborns. It produces changes in the brain that are irreversible. What we've found is that it reprograms the wiring of the brain, particularly the hypothalamus, so it doesn't function normally. These children are abnormal for the rest of their lives in terms of their physiological function.

Mike: Well, hopefully the weight of this evidence will someday become overwhelming, and government regulators will listen to you.

Dr. Blaylock: The pressure on researchers is so enormous. Larry Troker came out with his research about the DNA damage by aspartame. Then his career was damaged by the makers of aspartame. He said he would never do another research project concerning aspartame. Well, a number of researchers have said the same thing. Once they published their results, the full weight of these companies come down on their head. NutraSweet will contribute millions to a university and threaten to pull their donations if someone isn't quieted.

Mike: So there's blatant scientific censorship at work here.

Dr. Blaylock: There's blatant, and then there's just understood. You have NutraSweet manufacturers donating several million dollars to your university. The director of that laboratory, or the president of the university, will just quietly let them know that they'd really like to see research come to a stop.

The editor-in-chief of The Chemical News went through that with fluoride. They fired him because he refused to be quiet about fluoride toxicity, and they had just received this huge grant from Colgate-Palmolive. They said, "We'll lose our grant if you don't get quiet about fluoride." He wouldn't, and they fired him. Researchers know this.

Mike: I want to commend you for being willing to stand up and tell the truth about all of this. I think you're doing a great, positive service to public-health.

Dr. Blaylock: You're the one doing the service, because you're putting the word out there. Without you, I would just be sitting in a room fussing. It's people like you that get this word out and let people know what's going on in the world.

Mike: I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to pass a bill to outlaw health talk on the internet.

Dr. Blaylock: They're trying to do it. You know, they passed a law at one time in several states that no one but dietitians could speak on the subject of nutrition. Several states had that law passed. This meant Ph.D. biochemists couldn't talk about health. It was ridiculous. I'm sure that one day they're going to have an internet bill saying there's just too much dangerous material coming over the internet on health issues, and we need to regulate it.

Mike: Well, I want to thank you very much for all your time.

Dr. Blaylock: Thank you. I appreciate you giving me this opportunity.

Note: This full interview is also available as a free download (PDF) at www.TruthPublishing.com


IPT, The Amazing Treatment That Makes Chemotherapy 10,000 Times More Effective -- And Totally Safe
 

If it were I and chemotherapy looked like it would CURE me, not just cause some temporary tumor shrinkage along with destroying my immune system in the process so that the cancer would come back with a vengence, I'd take IPT (insulin potentiation therapy). See my webpage http://www.distance-healer.com/24.html for more information, and http://www.iptq.com/ and http://www.iptforcancer.com/ to find an IPT doctor. Be sure to see my Cancer Radiation and Chemo herbs/supplements that are extremely necessary to reduce collateral damage if you do take chemo or radiation! 

For my Supplement Protocol (which apply to fighting cancer along with taking chemo or radiation), see the main Cancer Protocol page. This page covers additional supplements that help reduce the side effects of chemo and radiation, and help them to work more effectively.


Indian Herb Relieves Side Effects of Chemotherapy

I don’t have to tell you how rough chemotherapy can be on your body. It can cause hair loss, diarrhea, mouth ulcers, low blood count, loss of appetite, vomiting, and more. [Death, for example.]

But that’s not all. While chemotherapy can and does kill cancer cells, it also kills healthy ones. Many times, chemotherapy kills the patient before the cancer does!

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to talk friends and loved ones out of taking chemo. That’s why I was really glad to hear about an herbal preparation from India that can reduce chemotherapy’s toxic effects.

Dr. Srivastava, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi, reported on 214 breast cancer patients receiving triple chemo. He divided the patients into two groups. The first group, which was the control, had only chemotherapy. The second group had chemo with the herbal treatment.

Dr. Srivastava used a product called Maharishi amrit kalash. This is an Ayurvedic food supplement made up of a variety of herbs and minerals. Its manufacturers say it has 1,000 times the antioxidant power of vitamins C and E.

Doctors will often tell you to shun protective antioxidants. They fear these vitamins will interfere with the chemo’s effects on your cancer. But, there’s no credible evidence that this happens. And, as you’ll see from the results of this study, this preparation can greatly help your ability to tolerate chemo ­ allowing it to fight the cancer better.

In the study, Maharishi amrit kalash reduced the number of people with vomiting by almost half! It also reduced the number of people with appetite loss by 36%. Perhaps most strikingly, the number of chemo patients who rated their quality of life as 'poor' was reduced by a whopping 61%. Unfortunately, the risks of hair loss, diarrhea, mouth ulcers, and low blood count were not changed. Still, these are fantastic results. If someone you know takes chemo, make sure they get their hands on some Maharishi amrit kalash. You can find it online at http://www.mapi.com/ and by phone at 800-255-8332.

Yours for better health and medical freedom,
Robert Jay Rowen, MD"

You can subscribe to Dr. Rowen's great (and free) e-mail newsletter, Second Opinion, just by going to: http://www.secondopinionnewsletter.com/


If you must have chemotherapy, use this free treatment to stop the side effects

You may know that I'm not a big fan of chemotherapy in cancer treatment. The side effects are terrible. And many people die from the poison rather than the cancer. Unfortunately, there are times when cancer patients must take chemotherapy. If you're in this position, I have some good news for you. I have a secret that can help protect you from these side effects. It's a secret that doesn't cost a dime, you don't have to see a doctor, and you don't have to take anything.

What could be such a powerful protector without any cost or medical intervention? It's fasting!

That's right! According to a new study, fasting for two days before you have chemo will protect your healthy cells from the poison.

In the study, researchers starved a line of yeast cells and found them 1,000 times more resistant to oxidative stress or chemotherapy drugs. And they also found that healthy cells starved of nutrients survived the ravages of chemotherapy far better than cancer cells so treated.

That was in a test tube. What about in animals? Well, the researchers then tried the same thing on living mice. They gave an unusually high dose of etoposide (80 mg/kg) to mice they starved for 48 hours. In humans, that is twice what is considered to be a very high dose of the drug.

The high dose killed 43% of the mice except one that didn't fast. The starved mice all survived and regained their lost weight within four days.

An even higher dose killed all of the well-fed mice from a different genetic strain, but none of the starved mice. And again the mice that fasted regained their weight.

We know that fasting prolongs life. It may be that fasting induces normal cells to go into a hibernation mode. Cancer cells don't have an 'off' switch. In the 'hibernation mode' the cells' metabolism slows so much that the chemo doesn't do a lot of damage. The cancer cells don't get that protection.

I'll admit fasting isn't pleasant. For some people it's very hard to do. And it can increase nausea in some people. However, these usually are far less severe than the chemo. So if you can do it, fasting might be a terrific way to protect yourself from this toxic drug.

Your oncologist probably doesn't know about this. Even if he does, he's unlikely to make much use of it. Fasting is a time-honored activity for health and spirituality. Here we see it desensitizing normal cells to toxic therapy. Unless you're wasting away from cancer, I see little downside to a one to two day fast prior to chemo. It just might help you keep your hair and protect your organs and bone marrow from the toxicity.

Yours for better health and medical freedom,

Robert Jay Rowen, MD
Ref: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 31.


Here are some things you can do to increase your protection against chemotherapy injury:

  • Alpha-lipoic acid: 200 mg twice a day with meals throughout your treatment and for three weeks afterward. Then take 100 mg twice a day thereafter.  This is one of the body’s chief antioxidants. It also greatly protects against radiation injury, reduces mercury in the body and guards against all forms of free radicals. It can cause the blood sugar to drop, so it should be taken with meals. It is an excellent product for diabetics.
  • Curcumin (an extract of the spice turmeric): 500 mg. taken three times a day for adults. Children older than age 6 can take 250 mg. twice a day. It is oil-soluble, so dissolve the contents of the capsules in extra-virgin olive oil (or molecularly-distilled fish oil). This flavonoid is a powerful anti-cancer substance, inhibits inflammation, is a powerful and versatile antioxidant, promotes wound healing, inhibits the growth of bacteria and viruses and protects organs, especially the brain and heart, against damage. Curcumin has a slight anticoagulant effect, [which you might consider in case adjustments need to be made to aspirin or anticoagulant drugs].
  • Quercetin: 500 to 1,000 mg three times a day. It is oil-soluble, so dissolve the contents of the capsules in extra-virgin olive oil. This is a very common flavonoid found in cranberries, onions, tea and apples. It has been shown to significantly protect against DNA damage. Because it makes insulin work better, it is especially beneficial to diabetics. It is also a very powerful and versatile antioxidant and reduces inflammation.
  • Hesperidin: It is oil-soluble, so dissolve the contents of the capsules in extra-virgin olive oil. Hesperidin (1/4 tsp 2-3 times a day, mix in fish oil with curcumin & quercetin) iherb LEX-13830.
  • Milk Thistle Extract: 175 mg or more every day.
  • Ginkgo Biloba: 160-320mg every day on an empty stomach. Ginkgo has been shown to increase brain blood flow. Ginkgo contains several flavonoids that are very protective of the blood vessels. [120mg has a slight blood-thinning effect approximately equal to that of one-half aspirin taken daily (240mg = 1 aspirin's effect), which you might consider in case adjustments need to be made to aspirin or anticoagulant drugs.]
  • Vitamin E succinate or natural vitamin E (mixed tocopherols): 400 IU three times a day. These are the only two forms of vitamin E to buy. Vitamin E acetate is of little use.
  • Vitamin C (buffered, as calcium or magnesium ascorbate): 750 mg three times a day. Do not buy ascorbic acid. It causes the blood to become acidic and is poorly utilized by the body. Normally, it should be taken on an empty stomach to prevent excess iron absorption, but if you are having surgery you will need additional iron. If you have a condition called hemochromatosis, do not take vitamin C supplements, as they can cause excess iron absorption.
  • Magnesium Citramate (citrate-maleate): 300mg of three times a day on an empty stomach (between meals). Magnesium plays a vital role in endothelial cell function. It also plays a major role in protecting the brain and heart.
  • CoQ10: 120-240 mg of CoQ10 twice a day starting at least one week before beginning your therapy and continuing for three weeks after completing it.
  • N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC): 500mgX3 during and until 3 wks after chemo ends; 500mgX2 afterwards or if you've not taken chemo, www.swansonvitamins.com, W854, 600mg, qty100 caps. [Helps liver, lungs, and with colon and other cancers by aiding detoxification and increasing glutathione, a very important antioxidant].
  • Glutathione (sublingual):  2/d under tongue until absorbed (1AM, 1PM) http://store.yahoo.com/iherb/glutathione1.html, SNS-01305, 50mg, qty100. Glutathione significantly protects the nerves from chemo toxicity. Regular glutathione tablets or capsules are very poorly absorbed and don't reach a high enough concentration in the body to be effective. Intravenous glutathione is even better than sublingual, if you have a cooperating doctor.
  • Folic acid: 800 ug. a day. Folic acid, along with vitamins B-12 and B-6, plays a vital role in the protection and repair of DNA. Significant defense against radiation damage to DNA has been shown.
  • Vitamin B-12 (sublingual): 1,000 ug. a day. This is a very important vitamin. Recent studies have shown that commonly used anesthetics can severely deplete vitamin B-12, producing sudden and severe deficiencies. Do not take cyanocobalamin, the most commonly sold form of B-12. It is poorly utilized and contains toxic cyanide. The variety your body uses is called methylcobalamin, which can be purchased as a sublingual tablet (it dissolves under your tongue).
  • Mixed carotenoids (extracted from the algae D. salina): 50,000 iu twice a day with meals.
  • Green Tea Extract (decaffeinated): 300mg twice a day with food. This supplement also helps prevent iron absorption.
  • Multivitamin-and-Mineral capsule or powder without iron or copper: take every day. In general, I recommend that such mixtures of vitamins and minerals come in a powder form, since hard tablets are often poorly absorbed. The combination should contain all of the vitamins, including vitamin K, beta-carotene, niacinamide and D-3, as well as selenium, zinc and magnesium. (Vitamin Research Products, Inc. (www.VRP.com) makes a very well-balanced multivitamin/mineral.)
  • Aged garlic extract: 300 mg. twice a day. Once it ages, garlic extract contains some compounds that strongly protect DNA against radiation injury. In addition, it protects against cancer, stroke and heart attacks and lowers blood pressure in hypertensives. It can thin the blood slightly (equal to about one aspirin a day) and should not be used by pregnant women or surgical patients.
  • Beta 1,3/1,6 glucan: 250 mg. a day. As we have seen, this is an excellent immune stimulant and has been shown to significantly protect bone marrow cells from radiation damage. Cells in the bone marrow and spleen are the most sensitive to radiation injury. Source Naturals and ImmunoDyne both make a very pure product. Purity is essential. It is vital to eat at least three servings of fruits and vegetables daily, because these foods contain an assortment of vitamins, minerals and flavonoids that protects cells from radiation damage.
  • Resveratrol: 10 mg of three times a day. Resveratrol is a flavonoid extracted from the skins of grapes (or from Japanese knotweed).
  • Niacinamide: 500 mg three times a day with meals throughout your treatment and for three weeks afterward.
  • Aashwagandha (Withnia somnifera): take 5 milliliters of 1:2 extract in water once or twice a day. Ashwagandha, also known as Indian ginseng, has been used to protect the DNA and cell integrity. It has been shown to safeguard the bone marrow from damage. In addition, it increases the number of cells within the bone marrow following treatments. Caution: Do not use ashwagandha with amphetamines or central nervous system (CNS)-depressant drugs.
  • Selenium as L-Se-methylselenocysteine (SeMSC): 200mg every day.
  • Zinc: 25mg every other day.

In addition, fruits and vegetables contain other compounds, many still unidentified, that protect the body. These chemicals act together to enhance effectiveness.


Information About Supplements & Chemotherapy/Radiation Therapy

Note: The immune and thymus boosters, including Immune Assist Critical Care mushroom extracts, Astragalus and most of the supplements, enzymes and herbs on my Cancer Protocol page, when used with chemotherapy, radiation therapy and following surgery, increase the effectiveness of conventional treatment and help reduce the damage to the immune system that chemo and radiation cause.

Book: "Astragalus and Glyconutrients Very Helpful for Chemo Patients"
(Excerpts from "Miracle Sugars" by Rita Elkins, M.H.)

p96: Astragalus increases the production of interferon, the cellular clearing of toxins and the number of IgA and IgG antibodies in the blood. Astragalus was able to significantly increase the survival rate of cancer patients who were on chemotherapy or radiation. Anyone facing chemotherapy should become acquainted with Astragalus. A very recent study found that Astragalus supplementation enhanced the action of chemotherapy while it simultaneously protected healthy cells. Show me a drug that can do that! 120 tumor patients were randomly divided into a treated group and a control group. Both groups were treated with chemo, but the treated group received Astragalus injections once a day for 21 days. Compared with the control group, the treated group showed a lower progression of cancer, less destruction of white blood cells and better overall counts of other immune cells and substances. They concluded that Astragalus supplemented with chemo could inhibit the development of malignant tumors, decrease the toxic-adverse effect of chemotherapy, elevate immune function and improve the quality of life in cancer patients.

p135: Researchers have found that Astragalus improved the action of cancer-killing T lymphocyte cells by 260 percent.
DIM and Indole-3-Carbinol are anticancer substances found in cruciferous (cabbage family) vegetables. (They help convert harmful estrogen, estradiol, to less harmful types)

Calcium D-Glucarate prompts a slow release of a substance that inhibits an enzyme that prevents the immune system from neutralizing cancer-causing substances. 70% of rats given a chemical that induces breast cancer that were pre-treated with dietary Glucarate did not develop tumors. The trial also discovered that Glucarate lowered blood levels of estradiol (the form of estrogen that causes breast cancer).

p134: Glyconutrients (good sugars) potentiate the actions of chemotherapy on cancer cells and they help prevent vulnerability to infections and other unwanted side effects by enhancing the body's resistance.


Chemotherapy and Supplements  (About Katie Wernecke -- a 13 yr old with cancer who fought the establishment, because their treatments were only making her worse.)

When Katie was in our care during chemotherapy the first five months we gave her nutritional supplements. When CPS and M.D. Anderson had control of my daughter Katie for the next five months they wouldn't allow her to have any nutritional supplements.

There was a lot of damage done to Katie mentally and physically by the chemotherapy without the supplements during the last five months. Consider the following article:

The truth - from a very well-respected holistic MD:

If You're on Chemotherapy, You Should Avoid Supplements, Right? Wrong!

Robert J. Rowen, MD Second Opinion Newsletter Second Opinion Health Alert, October 06, 2005

http://www.secondopinionnewsletter.com/index.php

I don't want you to be the victims of junk science, and especially if you have cancer. Take the recent "report" published by the American Cancer Society (ACS). This organization dares to suggest that taking antioxidants might hurt cancer patients.

However, report is nothing more than unsupported opinion. It's the ACS that has given us the horrific slash (surgery), burn (radiation), and poison (chemotherapy) approach to cancer. Amazing! They dare to assert that antioxidants might interfere with therapies that kill. What an oxymoron.

Truth is, this attack on supplements is nothing new. In fact, Kenneth Conklin published a fine review on the subject five years ago.

Conklin reviewed several antioxidants including vitamin C, glutathione, vitamin E, NAC, selenium, and more. He did give a few precautions for specific antioxidants when taken with chemo agents. In particular, glutathione and NAC shouldn't be administered simultaneously with platinum agents.

However, the general report not only suggested protection from the ravages of chemo.  The report went on to say that antioxidants actually increase the effectiveness of it!

Some agents, such as adriamycin and its family of chemicals, have well known and irreversible cardiac toxicity. CoQ10 can likely protect your heart against destruction wrought by this feared complication. I wonder how many chemo-induced heart attacks could have been prevented by CoQ10.

In scores of my own cancer patients, I consistently find a far higher quality of life in my patients who take antioxidants - with or without chemo. I've witnessed miraculous cancer reversals. Patients with even stage-4 cancer who undergo a major metabolic program of detoxification and nutritional supplementation have recovered!

As far as the alleged scientific studies showing antioxidants fail at expectations, we need to look at the methods of study. Typically, they're conducted with synthetic or refined nutrients. For example, most vitamin E studies are conducted with purified alpha tocopherol, not the more beneficial gamma tocopherol. Alpha tocopherol may actually displace what little good gamma tocopherol you have in your body.

I say you can't beat nature. So your best bet to prevent cancer is to eat an organic diet as fresh and living as possible. Supplements are just that - supplements. And you should buy only quality brands.  Even some supplements are synthetic and devoid of the biological cofactors God put together in a whole living food.

Yours for better health and medical freedom,

Robert Jay Rowen, MD

http://www.secondopinionnewsletter.com/index.php

Ref: Conklin, Kenneth A. "Dietary Antioxidants During Cancer Chemotherapy: Impact on Chemotherapeutic
Effectiveness and Development of Side Effects", Nutrition and Cancer 37(1):1-18, 2000.


In addition to the supplements on the main cancer protocol page, if taking Chemotherapy or Radiation:

Maharishi amrit kalash   (http://www.mapi.com/ or 800-255-8332)

Ligustrum Lucidum (p216 Blaylock), (iherb, NTA-00723, Nature's Answer, Ligustrum Fruit, Alcohol-Free, 30 ml, 1 fl. oz., $6.90). Blaylock: “If combined with Astragalus, Ligustrum increases survival time of people taking chemotherapy or radiation.”

Hawthorn extract, during and until 3 wks after chemo ends (helps protect heart against damage from chemo)(Swanson, NW526, $6.59, qty90, 500mg 1.8-2.2% Hawthorn, Nature's Way, 90 Capsules)

Siberian Ginseng, 3/d during and until 3 wks after chemo ends -- protects against chemo (http://www.vitacost.com/ParadiseHerbsSiberianEleutheroRoot  (qty60, 250mg 50:1, $9.25, PA777036)

Gugulipid, http://store.yahoo.com/iherb/guggulsterones.html, SNS-01840, $10.99, qty120, 37.5mg gugulsterones, 375mg 10%, 3/d (helps protect heart against damage from chemo)

Pantethine, 3/d, www.swansonvitamins.com, SWU150, 300mg, qty60, $10.49 (helps protect heart against damage from chemo)

L-Taurine, 2/d, Swanson SW827, qty100, 500mg, $3.14 (helps protect heart against damage from chemo)

Policosanol, 2/d, Swanson SWU268, qty60 capsules, 10mg, $4.49 from sugar cane. [SWU204, qty60 capsules, 20mg, $8.29 are sometimes on sale - buy one, get one free] (helps protect heart against damage from chemo)

Flush-Free Niacin (inositol hexaniacinate), 3-6/d (higher dose if cholesterol is out of control and liver is fine), www.swansonvitamins.com,  [Swanson SWU081, 500mg Niacin + 140mg Inositol, qty240 capsules, $14.99 (helps protect heart against damage from chemo)

L-Carnitine, 1-3/d; http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-L-Carnitine-Fumerate, (500mg, qty300, $29.99), 3/d (protects heart during chemo)

Natto (nattozyme/nattozime/nattokinase, Nattokinase clot dissolver, Best time to take is at night or following heart attack or clot-caused stroke. Dr Wms advised to take 1AM, 1Lunch, 2Bedtime). This dissolves clots, is not an anticoagulant. Swanson SWU258, qty90, 65mg [1000 fibrinolytic units (FU)], $8.99
---

Below is some information to reduce the damage done from CT/CAT/MRI scans, Xrays, and Radiation:

Danger in the Radiology Department

By Dr. Russell Blaylock

 

Admission to the hospital, even for minor problems, generally requires a trip to the X-ray department. Your doctor may require X-rays every few years as part of your annual physical. And admission to the hospital, even for minor problems, generally requires a trip to the X-ray department. Depending on your reason for being admitted, X-rays of the chest and other parts of the body often are considered routine. 

 In addition, your doctors may order CT scans and various radioactive tracer studies, such as a bone, liver or brain scan. With each of these tests, you will be exposed to a radiation dose that could vary in strength from very low to quite high. 

 

Depending on your reason for being admitted, X-rays of the chest and other parts of the body are often considered routine. In addition, your doctors may order CT scans and various radioactive tracer studies, such as a bone, liver or brain scan. With each of these tests, you will be exposed to a dose of radiation that could vary in strength from very low to quite high.

 

One thing to always keep in mind is that radiation damage is cumulative, meaning that with each exposure the damage is compounded. The greatest injury is to the DNA of your cells. This is how radiation causes cancer. For information on radiation damage and how to protect yourself, see my special report “Survive Your Hospital Visit.”

 

It has become popular for people to get a total body CT scan as a screening procedure to make sure they are healthy. A recent study found that this practice doubles your risk of developing cancer later in life.

 

The same is true of yearly mammograms. Women at high risk for breast cancer actually increase their chances of developing the disease by having yearly mammograms — with a 1 percent to 3 percent increased risk per year.
 

When I practiced neurosurgery, I was concerned about how much radiation exposure people received during a single hospital stay, when they would have a dozen or more X-rays, one or more radioactive scans and several CT scans.

 

It is important to note that you are receiving all of this radiation exposure while you are the most vulnerable to the harmful effects. This is because your body’s defenses, such as antioxidant enzymes, DNA repair ability and cellular strength, are collectively impaired by your disease, surgical trauma and the poor diet you receive in the hospital.

 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) devotes a lot of experimental study to radiation protection because astronauts and high-altitude pilots are exposed to extreme levels of gamma radiation.

From these studies has come a considerable amount of scientific literature showing that some of the best protection is derived from food extracts and vitamin combinations. Among the most potent are curcumin, quercetin, hesperidin, ginkgo biloba, beta-glucan and vitamins E and C, as well as multivitamin combinations. All of these are available from health food stores without a prescription. For information on the importance of vitamins in your diet, read my special report “Key Vitamins That Save Your Heart, Prevent Cancer, and Keep You Living Long.”

Here are some things you can do to increase your protection against radiation injury:

  • Curcumin (an extract of the spice turmeric): 500 mg. taken three times a day for adults. Children older than age 6 can take 250 mg. twice a day. It is oil-soluble, so dissolve the contents of the capsules in extra-virgin olive oil. This flavonoid is a powerful anti-cancer substance, inhibits inflammation, is a powerful and versatile antioxidant, promotes wound healing, inhibits the growth of bacteria and viruses and protects organs, especially the brain and heart, against damage. Curcumin has a slight anticoagulant effect, [which you might consider in case adjustments need to be made to aspirin or anticoagulant drugs].
  • Quercetin: 500 to 1,000 mg three times a day. It is oil-soluble, so dissolve the contents of the capsules in extra-virgin olive oil. This is a very common flavonoid found in cranberries, onions, tea and apples. It has been shown to significantly protect against DNA damage. Because it makes insulin work better, it is especially beneficial to diabetics. It is also a very powerful and versatile antioxidant and reduces inflammation.
  • Hesperidin: It is oil-soluble, so dissolve the contents of the capsules in extra-virgin olive oil. Hesperidin (1/4 tsp 2-3 times a day, mix in fish oil with curcumin & quercetin) iherb LEX-13830.
  • Folic acid: 800 ug. a day. Folic acid, along with vitamins B-12 and B-6, plays a vital role in the protection and repair of DNA. Significant defense against radiation damage to DNA has been shown.
  • Vitamin B-12 (sublingual): 1,000 ug. a day. This is a very important vitamin. Recent studies have shown that commonly used anesthetics can severely deplete vitamin B-12, producing sudden and severe deficiencies. Do not take cyanocobalamin, the most commonly sold form of B-12. It is poorly utilized and contains toxic cyanide. The variety your body uses is called methylcobalamin, which can be purchased as a sublingual tablet (it dissolves under your tongue).
  • Vitamin E succinate or natural vitamin E (mixed tocopherols): 400 IU three times a day. These are the only two forms of vitamin E to buy. Vitamin E acetate is of little use.
  • Mixed carotenoids (extracted from the algae D. salina -- Take 50,000 iu twice a day with meals.
  • Green Tea Extract (decaffeinated): 300mg twice a day with food. This supplement also helps prevent iron absorption.
  • Vitamin C (buffered, as calcium or magnesium ascorbate): 1,000 mg. three times a day on an empty stomach (between meals). Do not buy ascorbic acid. It causes the blood to become acidic and is poorly utilized by the body. Normally, it should be taken on an empty stomach to prevent excess iron absorption, but if you are having surgery you will need additional iron. If you have a condition called hemochromatosis, do not take vitamin C supplements, as they can cause excess iron absorption.
  • Multivitamin-and-Mineral capsule or powder without iron or copper: take every day. In general, I recommend that such mixtures of vitamins and minerals come in a powder form, since hard tablets are often poorly absorbed. The combination should contain all of the vitamins, including vitamin K, beta-carotene, niacinamide and D-3, as well as selenium, zinc and magnesium. (Vitamin Research Products, Inc. (www.VRP.com) makes a very well-balanced multivitamin/mineral.)
  • Aged garlic extract: 300 mg. twice a day. Once it ages, garlic extract contains some compounds that strongly protect DNA against radiation injury. In addition, it protects against cancer, stroke and heart attacks and lowers blood pressure in hypertensives. It can thin the blood slightly (equal to about one aspirin a day) and should not be used by pregnant women or surgical patients.
  • Alpha-lipoic acid: 200 mg twice a day with meals throughout your treatment and for three weeks afterward. Then take 200 mg once a day thereafter.  This is one of the body’s chief antioxidants. It also greatly protects against radiation injury, reduces mercury in the body and guards against all forms of free radicals. It can cause the blood sugar to drop, so it should be taken with meals. It is an excellent product for diabetics.
  • Beta 1,3/1,6 glucan: 250 mg. a day. As we have seen, this is an excellent immune stimulant and has been shown to significantly protect bone marrow cells from radiation damage. Cells in the bone marrow and spleen are the most sensitive to radiation injury. Source Naturals and ImmunoDyne both make a very pure product. Purity is essential. It is vital to eat at least three servings of fruits and vegetables daily, because these foods contain an assortment of vitamins, minerals and flavonoids that protects cells from radiation damage.
  • Resveratrol: 10 mg of three times a day. Resveratrol is a flavonoid extracted from the skins of grapes (or from Japanese knotweed).
  • Niacinamide: 500 mg three times a day with meals throughout your treatment and for three weeks afterward.
  • Aashwagandha (Withnia somnifera): take 5 milliliters of 1:2 extract in water once or twice a day. Ashwagandha, also known as Indian ginseng, has been used to protect the DNA and cell integrity. It has been shown to safeguard the bone marrow from damage by radiation. In addition, it increases the number of cells within the bone marrow following radiation treatments. Caution: Do not use ashwagandha with amphetamines or central nervous system (CNS)-depressant drugs.
  • Selenium as L-Se-methylselenocysteine (SeMSC): 200mg every day.
  • Zinc: 25mg every other day.
  • Ginkgo Biloba: 120mg every day. Ginkgo contains several flavonoids that are very protective of the blood vessels. [120mg has a slight blood-thinning effect approximately equal to that of one-half aspirin taken daily, which you might consider in case adjustments need to be made to aspirin or anticoagulant drugs.]
  • Magnesium Citramate (citrate-maleate): 300mg of three times a day. Magnesium plays a vital role in endothelial cell function. It also offers major protection of the brain and heart.

In addition, fruits and vegetables contain other compounds, many still unidentified, that protect the body. These chemicals act together to enhance effectiveness.

--- 


For the following topics (and others), consider subscribing to Dr. Blaylock's monthly reports (
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/newsletters/blaylock/offer6.cfm):

Diet Is Key to Preventing Infections

Things You Need to Know About Anesthesia

Preventing Breathing Problems

Preparing for Surgery and Recovery

During Your Hospital Stay

How to Eat Healthy in a Hospital

---

 

Excerpts from Dr. Blaylock’s book, “Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients” (http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Strategies-Patients-Russell-Blaylock/dp/0758202210), which I highly recommend that you purchase and read thoroughly:

 

Protecting against Radionecrosis

 

While the radiation damaged to normal tissues can be greatly reduced by using specific combinations of antioxidants, oncologists fear that this will also reduce the effectiveness of the radiation against the cancer. As this book demonstrates, there is little evidence to suggest this and a lot that says otherwise. In fact, numerous studies have actually shown that selected antioxidant combinations can actually enhance the effectiveness of radiation treatments against cancer, while at the same time significantly protect the surrounding normal tissue from radiation’s harmful effects. The following supplements have been shown to do just that, but they must be taken in combination and not alone. Here are the guidelines:

 

  • Take 25,000 iu of mixed carotenoids (extracted from the algae D. salina twice a day.
  • Take 1,000 mg of magnesium ascorbate three times a day on an empty stomach (between meals).
  • Take 400 iu of vitamin E succinate three times a day.
  • Take a multivitamin-and-mineral capsule or powder without iron or copper every day.
  • Take 500 to 1,000 mg of quercetin three times a day with meals (or mixed in oil).
  • Take 500 mg of curcumin three times a day. Dissolve the contents of each capsule in one tablespoon of extra virgin olive oil.
  • Take 200 mg of alpha lipoic acid twice a day with meals throughout your treatment and for three weeks afterward. Then take 200 mg once a day thereafter.
  • Take 5 milliliters of ashwagandha (Withnia somnifera) 1:2 extract in water once or twice a day. Ashwagandha, also known as Indian ginseng, has been used to protect the DNA and cell integrity. It has been shown to safeguard the bone marrow from damage by radiation. In addition, it increases the number of cells within the bone marrow following radiation treatments. Caution: Do not use ashwagandha with amphetamines or central nervous system (CNS)-depressant drugs.

Increasing the Effectiveness of Radiation Treatments

 

From the study conducted by Dr. Levenson and his coworkers, it appears that vitamins mainly suppress cancer’s growth – i.e., they cause the cancer to become dormant. Dormant cancers cannot harm you.

 

In the mice in Dr. Levenson’s study having certain combined vitamins and radiation in which all the tumors regressed, 10% of the tumors later returned. This is still very impressive when compared to the animals that were not given certain vitamins and which experienced recurrence of all their tumors. Yet, in the former group of animals, when the vitamins were later stopped, more tumors did recur.

 

It therefore appears that the vitamins suppressed the cancer tumors rather than actually killing them. In fact, they suppressed the tumors quite effectively as long as the vitamins were continued. Again, I emphasize that the vitamins enhanced the ability of the radiation to kill or suppress the cancer, but protected the surrounding normal tissues and cells from the harmful effects of the therapy.

 

The most powerful carotenoids against cancer have been found to be the canthaxanthins, beta-carotene (do not take beta-carotene alone without the other carotenoids), alpha-carotene, lutein, and lycopene; that is why I recommend using only the carotenoids from the D. salina algae, now widely available (see main cancer protocol page). I also recommend combining the carotenoids with niacinamide. Good guidelines to follow are:

 

  • Take 50,000 iu of mixed carotenoids twice a day with meals.
  • Take 500 mg of niacinamide three times a day with meals throughout your treatment and for three weeks afterward.
  • Take 10 mg of resveratrol three times a day. Resveratrol is a flavonoid extracted from the skins of grapes (or from Japanese knotweed).

While the results seen with mixed carotenoids and niacinamide are best when the supplements are begun before starting the radiation treatments, it has been shown that they work even if started several days after radiation treatments have been initiated. The resveratrol should be started before the radiation treatments are begun.

 

Niacinamide, the form of niacin used by the body, has been shown to increase the blood flow through tumors, thereby increasing the oxygenation within the cancer cells. As you will recall, a high oxygen level in cancer cells makes the cells very sensitive to destruction by radiation. The niacinamide should be started several days before the radiation treatments are begun and should be continued throughout the treatment period.

 

Resveratrol has the opposite effect on cancer cells than it does on normal cells: normal cells exposed to the extract are protected from radiation while cancer cells are made more vulnerable to it. This again demonstrates the difference between normal cells and cancer cells. Substances that inhibit the cyclooxygenase 1 (COX-1) enzyme, whether they are arthritis drugs or plant extracts, are known to protect the cells from the damaging effects of radiation, but blocking the same enzyme in cancer cells makes the cells more sensitive to radiation damage. (See pp 178-180 in Dr. Blaylock’s book, as well as COX enzymes and also Inflammation in the index, for a discussion of COX enzymes and related supplements).

 

Special Risk to Blood Vessels from Radiation

 

One hazard rarely considered, even by radiation oncologists, is the danger of blood vessel injury caused by the radiation passing through blood vessels, from small arterioles to larger arteries. We know that the cells lining the blood vessels, called the endothelia, are quite sensitive to the harmful effects of X-ray beams. The endothelial cells are vital to normal blood vessel function, and we now know that damage to these cells plays a major role in atherosclerosis, also called hardening of the arteries.

 

In a recent study in which doctors examined patients treated for nasopharyngeal cancers with radiation treatments, it was found that arterial stenosis was significantly more common than among non-radiated patients. Fifty-six out of the seventy-one developed stenosis (narrowing) of the carotid artery, the main artery supplying blood to the brain, whereas only eleven of the fifty-one non-irradiated patients developed stenosis. Of the patients demonstrating severe stenosis (greater than 50% occlusion), all were in the radiated group. The artery most often damaged by the radiation was the carotid artery. The third most often injured was the vertebral artery, which supplies blood to the brain stem.

 

While this study sounds an alarm regarding the use of intense radiation beams to treat nasopharyngeal and brain cancers, it issues an equal warning about the use of radiation to treat any cancer lying close to a vessel supplying blood to a critical area. For example, when the brain, one of the most vascular organs in the body, is irradiated, significant damage is done to an extensive collection of critical blood vessels. This damage can cause small blood vessels to suddenly occlude, leading to dementia or severe neurological impairment.

 

Protecting against Radiation Injury

 

While there are numerous nutritional supplements that can protect the cells from the damaging effects of radiation, including garlic, melatonin, selenium, curcumin, alpha lipoic acid, and numerous flavonoids, there are some that serve a double function. Take, for example, beta-1,3 glucan, a polysaccharide extract from mushrooms and the outer wall of baker’s yeast. Beta-1,3 glucan has been shown to offer significant protection against the damaging effects of radiation, especially the severe injury seen when the immune cells are irradiated. The immune cells include the cells of the spleen, bone marrow, and lymph nodes.

 

In addition, beta-1,3 glucan is a powerful immune stimulant, especially for the immune cells that primarily fight cancer cells. One of the more important cells in this battle is the macrophage, which is sort of the brains of the operation. The macrophage can be considered the general of the battle forces opposing the invading cancer cells. The T-lymphocytes can be viewed as the noncoms and privates. The T-lymphocytes, or noncoms and privates, go to the general, or the macrophage, for their orders. The macrophage can also call up more troops from the bone marrow. It is this latter function that makes the macrophage such an important player in the protection against the damaging effects of radiation on the bone marrow.

 

Mice exposed to high doses of whole-body radiation have been show to be significantly more likely to survive if they are first treated with beta-1,3-glucan. Not only does beta-1,3-glucan protect the bone marrow cells from destruction, but it also prevents the infections that frequently follow extensive radiation exposure. It does this while increasing the killing of the cancer cells. Therefore, it provides a double benefit.

 

Another way to protect the normal cells from radiation while giving the therapy an additional boost in its cancer-killing effectiveness is to use supplements that block the cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) enzyme. COX-2 is a special enzyme that causes inflammation. Arthritis drugs, called nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), block this enzyme (but damage the liver). Blocking this enzyme also inhibits the growth of several cancers.

 

Another effect of blocking the COX-2 enzyme is protection of the normal cells against radiation damage. Many of the plant flavonoids, such as curcumin, quercetin, hesperidin, and Kaempferol, also powerfully block this enzyme (as do Zyflamend, Boswellia, fish oil, GLA/Borage oil, ginger root, Capsaicin (hot pepper) [see main cancer protocol page for sources of these]. Of special interest is curcumin, the extract of the spice turmeric. Not only does curcumin block the COX-2 enzyme, offering radiation protection, it also strongly inhibits the growth, invasion, and metastasis of many cancers. This is truly targeted therapy, which oncologists claim to be seeking, with a major bonus of protection of normal cells at the same time.

 

[Fats have been shown to play a major role in the evolution of cancer. Some fats prevent it, while others promote its development and aid its ability to spread. I call these “good fats” and “bad fats.” Among the bad fats are the omega-6 fats, which include corn, safflower, sunflower, peanut, soybean and canola oils. A number of experiments have shown that these oils work as an activator for cancer, making it grow and spread like wildfire. They do this through a number of mechanisms, one of which is increasing the COX-2 enzyme. We call these the pro-inflammatory fats.

 

The good fats include the omega-3 oils and other oils that are converted into EPA and DHA, such as alpha-linolenic acid. The omega-3 oils come from algae, which explains how fish obtain them. This is also why farm-raised fish are devoid of omega-3 oils, which are composed of two nutrients — EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid).]

 

A study coming out of India has found that ashwagandha (Indian ginseng) not only protected mice exposed to high-dose radiation, but also increased their white blood cell counts. In addition, the ashwagandha increased the number of blood-forming cells in the mice’s bone marrow. With bone marrow depression being a major problem in cancer patients treated with radiation or chemotherapy agents, ashwagandha may be a most useful herb.

 

Another study found that calcium channel blockers, frequently used to control high blood pressure, can also dramatically protect normal cells from radiation damage, and do not reduce the efficiency of the radiation in killing the cancers.

 

One of the most powerful natural calcium channel blockers is magnesium. This action is how magnesium protects the brain and heart during strokes and heart attacks. Magnesium plays a major role in protecting many tissues and organs; radioprotection is an added bonus.

 

It is necessary to use several types of nutritional supplements together, since each nutrient plays a separate role in protecting the whole body. One of the more interesting radiation protectants is the herb ginkgo biloba. Ginkgo contains not only the special components that we associate with memory enhancement, but also several very powerful antioxidant flavonoids, called apigenin, quercetin, and Kaempferol; all three of these flavonoids powerfully protect cells against radiation-induced damage, especially DNA damage. At the Chernobyl Power Plant accident, the affected workers were given ginkgo biloba extract three times a day for thirty days. The benefit from the ginkgo began immediately and lasted at least 7 months after the herb was stopped (at a steadily decreasing benefit with time). Ginkgo is especially efficient at protecting the blood vessels, and by slightly thinning the blood, it may reduce metastasis of tumors. The blood-thinning effect of ginkgo biloba taken at a daily dose of 240 mg is approximately equal to that of one aspirin taken daily. Stories of hemorrhaging after taking the herb are serious exaggerations.

 

In addition, there are a number of nutrients that help to strengthen the walls of the blood vessels. This action has the advantage of preventing the spread of cancer, since it is difficult for a tumor to erode through a strong wall. Following is a good nutritional program:

 

  • Take 300mg decaffeinated green tea extract twice a day with food. This supplement also helps prevent iron absorption.
  • Take 500mg curcumin three times a day. Dissolve the contents of each capsule in one tablespoon of cold-pressed extra virgin olive oil. Curcumin has a slight anticoagulant effect, [which you might consider in case adjustments need to be made to aspirin or anticoagulant drugs].
  • Take 200mg Selenium as L-Se-methylselenocysteine (SeMSC) every day.
  • Take 25mg Zinc every other day.
  • Take 120mg Ginkgo Biloba every day. Ginkgo contains several flavonoids that are very protective of the blood vessels. [120mg has a slight blood-thinning effect approximately equal to that of one-half aspirin taken daily, which you might consider in case adjustments need to be made to aspirin or anticoagulant drugs.]
  • Take 300mg of Magnesium Citramate (citrate-maleate) three times a day. Magnesium plays a vital role in endothelial cell function. It also offers major protection of the brain and heart.

Most cancer patients fear their treatments because of the stories they have heard about terrible fatigue, nausea and vomiting, hair loss, and numerous other complications. Fortunately, most of these complications can be avoided without sacrificing the effectiveness of the conventional treatments. In fact, nutritional treatments and dietary changes can actually enhance the effectiveness of the treatments, making a true cure more likely.

 

The vast majority of the patients that I have treated, including those who came to me long after their conventional treatments had been started, reported that they felt dramatically better after beginning their nutritional program. They had significantly more energy, little or no nausea, greater endurance, improved mood, and dramatic improvement in their symptoms, including pain.

 

Pain can be a special problem for patients with bone metastasis. I have noticed that many of my patients with metastatic pain improve, sometimes dramatically, once they are fully on the dietary and supplement program. In addition, they lose fat weight and gain muscle weight. [Cesium treatment will also get rid of pain.]

 

The fear expressed by oncologists that nutritional supplementation can interfere with the conventional treatments, or even make cancers grow faster, is totally unfounded and denies patients a major weapon in fighting, and ultimately defeating, their cancer.

 

When you tell your oncologist that you want to start a nutritional program and that the program will involve taking antioxidant supplements, you may see your doctor’s eyes grow as big as saucers, as if he has seen a ghost. With panic gripping his voice, he may tell you, with an ever reddening face, that you must not take any antioxidant supplements because they will do two things: one, they will make your cancer grow faster, and two, they will interfere with the effectiveness of your treatments. Neither of these beliefs is true when the nutritional program is carefully designed.

 

Most patients arrive at their oncologist’s office in a state of panic. In their minds, they have been give the worst diagnosis a person could ever hear: You have cancer. Everything in their lives suddenly changes. It has been said that impending death sharpens the mind. It can also cloud the mind. Fear often makes it difficult to think rationally. When most people reach that point, their natural reaction is to turn to the person who is most likely to save them from this horrifying disease. The oncologist, dressed in his starched white coat, stern-faced, eyes either penetrating or evasive, represents a commanding presence. In essence, at that point it is the oncologist who stands between you and a possible reality that you have been fighting so intensely to keep out of your mind: a slow, painful death from your disease.

 

Oncologists represent the best that allopathic medical science has to offer in the fight against cancer. They have trained for many years in some of the best medical institutions in the country and have access to the latest breakthroughs in cancer treatments. Their world is a secret, often frightening universe dominated by strange words, powerful drugs, and Star Wars-looking machines that hum and destroy tumors. Their self-assurance and boldness fill you with a renewed hope of a favorable outcome. Success, you tell yourself, depends on doing all that the oncologist tells you to do. After all, your oncologist knows all that is known about cancer.

 

The look of shock that may cross your oncologist’s face, and his uncompromising stance on avoiding all antioxidants, will break your confidence. In your mind, you will tell yourself that your oncologist must know something that the person who recommended the nutritional program does not know. This is a difficult conclusion to overcome. Some cancer patients will, at that point, abandon all thoughts of defying their oncologist. Success, some will conclude, will depend on absolute loyalty to the oncologist.

 

Other patients will abandon their nutritional treatments, despite their belief in their usefulness, because they will fear alienating their oncologist, possibly leading to the doctor’s refusal to treat them any further. This is a terrifying thought with which many people cannot deal.

 

What Most Doctors do not Know

 

Over the years, I have found that most patients believe that all doctors know the same things concerning medicine – that is, that all doctors are knowledgeable about all the illnesses they treat. Unfortunately, this is not true. One of the great intellectual vacuums in medical training is nutrition. The vast majority of doctors do not know a great deal concerning nutrition, especially in regards to particular illnesses. This is because most medical schools do not teach nutrition to their budding doctors, and the vast majority of residency training programs never mention anything other than the basics.

 

For example, neurosurgeons and neurologists, in general, know very little concerning the effects of nutrition on brain function or its use in treating neurological diseases. The same is true for most medical specialists, especially oncologists.

 

I have found that the vast majority of oncologists rarely give their patients good advice concerning nutrition. Despite the fact that it has been known for many years now that certain foods and food components can dramatically increase the growth and spread of cancers, oncologists frequently allow their patients to eat these very foods.

 

In fact, one otherwise excellent book on dealing with cancer recommends, as healthful snacks to keep on hand, cakes, cookies, cheesecake, ice cream and dried fruits. All of these “healthful snacks” in fact, contain known cancer-promoting nutrients and additives. Even to the untrained, these snacks represent poor nutritional choices for anyone.

 

We also know, for example, that many types of fats and oils dramatically promote cancer growth and spread. All of these fats are the ones most commonly used in processed foods, again being promoted by oncology and hospital dietitians. The doctors themselves do not seem to be aware of these important relationships between cancer and nutrition.

 

In my own medical community, for instance, an annual report about the oncology services at one of the more prestigious cancer centers advertises the following nutritional services: “Nutrition services stocks the oncology floor with milk, ice cream, soft drinks, crackers and other snacks and nutritional supplements to encourage patients to increase caloric intake.” Among the “nutritional supplements” are soft-serve ice cream, yogurt, and milkshakes. As we will see, many of these snack items contain components that promote cancer growth.

 

From the time doctors enter medical school all the way through their residency training, they learn to use three things: surgery, pharmaceutical medications and radiotherapy. The remainder of their time is spent on the proper methods of making a diagnosis.

 

For the oncologist, the greatest emphasis is place of the use of pharmaceuticals and radiotherapy. There is little question that oncologists know an awful lot about the pharmaceutical treatment of cancer. Unfortunately, as we have seen, successes with this treatment have been few and far between. [See “Questioning Chemotherapy” by Ralph Moss, besides other sections of Dr. Blaylock’s book.] The death rate for the major cancers has changed little over the past thirty years. In fact, little at all has changed, outside of the ability to make an earlier diagnosis [which is used to distort statistics of supposed cures, along with counting patients as “cured” who live 5 years and a day after the earlier diagnosis before dying.]

 

Despite the tremendous advances made in the nutritional treatment of cancer, especially as a complementary enhancement of the conventional treatments, oncologists remain largely ignorant of this knowledge. As a result, they not only harm their patients by giving them cancer-promoting nutritional advice, but deny them nutritional treatments that would make their conventional treatments safer and more effective.

 

In the past, we did not know why cancer rates were lower in people who ate a diet of mostly fruits and vegetables. This left many oncologists skeptical. Determined to practice “scientific” medicine, the oncologists turned to the pharmaceutical and radiological treatments, things that had more “science” behind them. These therapies often failed as cancer treatments, but at least they were scientific.

 

All of this changed over the past thirty years, especially over the past decade. We now have good scientific explanations about why and how nutrition inhibits cancer development, growth, and spread. In addition, we have many confirmed studies showing that a large number of nutrients enhance the effectiveness of the traditional treatments, while at the same time reducing their toxicity to normal cells. When we can make chemotherapy agents and radiotherapy less harmful to the normal cells, we can safely increase the dose of these treatments, possibly making the treatments more successful. [Note: see insulin potentiation therapy (IPT) on the main cancer protocol page for a minimally toxic way to administer chemotherapy (with which you should still take supplements to reduce toxicity) if you’re adamant about chemotherapy.]

 

Because most oncologists know nothing of the vast scientific nutritional literature, much of which appears in their own journals, they continue to scare their patients away from these treatments with stories of harm, which appear in no valid scientific studies. While most doctors would never accept as truth information based purely on theory and hypothesis, they readily do so when it comes to the so-called “dangerous complementary nutritional treatments”. Their fears are based purely on hypothesis and not on scientifically verifiable facts. [Follow the money.] As we will see, the science is on the side of using nutrition to enhance the effectiveness of the traditional treatments.

 

Anywhere from 33% to 70% of all cancers are diet related. [80% of all genetically-caused cancers can be activated or de-activated via the “epigenomes” of your cells by your diet and lifestyle.]

 

[See pp 127- in Dr. Blaylock’s book for more of this information.]

---


Warning: Imaging Tests Can Damage Kidneys, Increase Stroke and Heart Attack Risk

by S. L. Baker, features writer

(NaturalNews) No matter what your health complaint is, if you go see your doctor you might end up undergoing some kind of high tech imaging procedure such as cardiac angiography, CT (computed tomography) or MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). According to a study published last fall in the journal Health Affairs, medical imaging has soared over the last few years across all types of these tests, doubling the annual medical cost per patient. In fact, the study confirmed previous reports that patients are far-too-often being subjected to unnecessary imaging.

At least, most of these tests are minimally invasive and thoroughly studied to make sure they carry few risks so they are safe, right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. New reports of lasting, health-harming effects from some imaging tests are accumulating. A case in point: a new study just published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society Nephrology (CJASN) warns that seemingly minor and reversible
kidney damage injury which can arise after undergoing certain common medical imaging procedures is a serious health threat. The reason? It is linked to a greatly increased risk of stroke, heart attack and death.

University of Vermont
physician Richard Solomon,MD, and his colleagues investigated 294 patients with kidney disease who were exposed to contrast agents during cardiac angiography. Patients in this study, dubbed the CARE (Cardiac Angiography in REnally Impaired Patients) trial, were randomly divided with half receiving the contrast agent iopamidol and the other receiving the contrast agent iodixanol.

Many medical imaging techniques, including cardiac angiography and
CT scans, often involve the use of contrast agents, substances that contain iodine (like iopamidol and iodixanol) and barium, because they enhance the contrast between body structures or fluids within the body. This allows blood vessels and changes in tissues to be more clearly visualized.

When Dr. Solomon and his colleagues followed the CARE patients for one year or longer, they found that 92 (31 percent) of the research subjects experienced negative health effects after their imaging test. Their risk of having a
stroke or heart attack over the next year or two after the test was elevated. Overall, 38 (13 percent) of the patients experienced a major event, such as death, stroke, heart attack, or end-stage renal disease. Those who developed contrast-induced kidney injuries had twice as many long-term negative health effects compared with patients who didn't suffer kidney damage.

It isn't only people who already have problems with their kidneys who can be at risk from the imaging testing,either. Doctors have long known exposure to contrast agents can cause damage in seemingly healthy kidneys, but patients are usually assured this is just a temporary side effect that will resolve on its own. However, recent studies have suggested that contrast-induced kidney damage might actually be lasting and serious. In a statement to the media, the University of Vermont researchers said
"the CARE trial findings should prompt investigators to design additional studies on the long-term negative health effects of contrast-induced kidney damage".

In addition to kidney damage, the contrast agent iopamidol has also been known to sometimes cause
seizures in people with a history of epilepsy. However, in rare case reports, including one published earlier this year in the Internet Journal of Neurology, iopamidol has been found to cause severe seizures and respiratory arrest in non-epileptic patients undergoing imaging tests.

As reported in Natural News last April (
http://www.naturalnews.com/026001.html), the use of contrast agents isn't the only potentially dangerous downside to some common imaging procedures. A study in the medical journal Radiology found that people who had numerous CT scans over their lifetime had a significantly increased risk of cancer. In fact, CT scans increased the risk of cancer by 2.7 to 12 percent.

---


CT Scans Raise Cancer Risk

by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

(NaturalNews) A new study just published in the April issue of the medical journal Radiology has a sobering conclusion for anyone who thinks "non-invasive" CT scans are simply pain-free, high tech medical marvels with no downside. The research shows that people who undergo numerous computed tomography (CT) scans over their lifetime may be at a significantly increased risk of cancer.

In fact, seven percent of the patients studied had enough recurrent CT testing to raise their estimated cancer risk by one percent or more above the baseline US cancer risk rate of 42 percent. Among the patients in the top percentile of cumulative lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer,
CT scans increased their chances of malignancies by 2.7 to 12 percent.

According to the Radiological Society of North America, some 68.7 million CT exams were performed in the U.S. in 2008 -- that's 6 million more than were performed in 2006. CT is commonly used to make medical diagnoses and to help figure out treatment options because the scanning technique provides detailed images of internal organs through digital imaging processing which generates a three-dimensional picture. To accomplish this, CT scanning involves taking a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images around a single axis of rotation. The result is that CT scans use higher radiation doses than most other imaging exams.

For their study, Aaron Sodickson, M.D., Ph.D., assistant director of Emergency Radiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and researcher at the Center for Evidence-Based Imaging in Boston, and his research team developed new methodology to estimate the cumulative radiation exposure for CT scans and the associated radiation-induced cancer risks for individual patients. The scientists took each patient's CT history from electronic medical records and applied standard risk estimation models using a formula which takes into account the patient's gender and age at time of x-ray exposure.

In all, some 31,462 adult patients were studied. All had diagnostic CT scans at Brigham and Women's Hospital or the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in 2007 and had undergone a total of 190,712 CT exams over the previous 22 years. About 33 percent of the research subjects underwent five or more lifetime CT exams, five percent had more than 22 CT scans, and approximately one percent underwent more than 38 exams. Fifteen percent received estimated cumulative effective radiation doses of more than 100 millisieverts (mSv) --
equal to the radiation from 1,000 chest x-rays. Four percent received a whopping radiation exposure of more than 250 mSv and one percent were subjected to over 399 mSv.

"CT is an excellent diagnostic tool of tremendous clinical value in many situations," Dr. Sodickson said in a statement released to the media. "Individual decisions about its use should balance the expected clinical benefits against the potential cumulative risks of recurrent imaging."

"However, we feel that a higher clinical threshold is warranted in patients undergoing a large amount of recurrent CT imaging, particularly if many of their prior CT scans have been negative. This scenario may result in a combination of high cumulative risk with low clinical benefit," he added.

Dr. Sodickson also pointed out that the techniques implemented in his group's study could be used to identify higher risk patients who might benefit from "enhanced radiation protection efforts". This statement is of particular interest because it appears to indicate better radiation protection is available -- although clearly not being routinely used.

Other scientists have previously urged restraint in using CT scans too often and have sounded alarms over the radiation exposure associated with the technology. For example, in 2007, writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, David J. Brenner, Ph.D., and Eric J. Hall, Ph.D., from the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, argued that the potential cancer-causing effects from using CT scans might be underestimated or overlooked. In fact, they stated one third of all CT scans performed in the United States may not even be medically necessary.
---

Another Supplement You Must Take if You’re on Chemotherapy
From Dr. Robert J. Rowen's Second Opinion Newsletter November 2006 / Volume XVI , No. 11

One of the most difficult tasks I had to confront during my tenure in Alaska was facing arrogant, closed-minded oncologists. They were absolutely intent on poisoning their patients with chemotherapy.

They also instilled terrible fear and trepidation in their patients. Many of them threatened to walk away from the case if the patients saw me for nutritional protection. I saw my role as protecting them from the chemicals poured into their bodies. They scorned me for trying to help.

Through the years, more and more studies show that antioxidants protect from the ravages of chemo and assist in the benefits (yes, there are benefits if used correctly). I’ve told you in the past about vitamin C and others. But one of the best and cheapest supplements I used to protect my patients from the poison was selenium. And now there’s evidence that confirms what I’ve seen for years.

Researchers in Egypt studied 30 patients with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma). They randomized the patients to receive chemo alone or chemo with selenium (as sodium selenite).

Those given selenium received 0.2 mg per kilogram of weight per day. That’s 14 mg for an average-sized man like me (about 70 times the daily dose found in most multiple vitamins). Patients receiving selenium had significantly higher levels of neutrophils. These are white blood cells not directly connected with the cancer. Neutrophils protect you against bacteria. The patients consequently had a much lower infection rate.

The selenium group also had a better ejection fraction from their hearts. One known side effect of chemo is it damages (often permanently) the pumping ability of your heart. The selenium prevented that toxic effect.

I know many alternative-minded cancer patients opt for conventional chemotherapy. That’s all their insurance and Medicare will cover. Your oncologist might be similarly close-minded. But you can still protect yourself. Selenium is a great place to start. But don’t stop there. I also recommend vitamin C, vitamin E, CoQ10, NAC, glutathione precursors (undenatured whey protein), and green tea. These might save your heart, immune system, and bone marrow from unnecessary destruction.

Please see your integrative physician for advice on personal dosing. I don’t recommend undergoing conventional chemotherapy or radiation without significant antioxidant protection, either by IV, mouth, or both. Reduce the Toxic Side Effects of Any Drug

You may know that I’m not a big fan of drugs. They are poisons that could have terrible side effects. But there are some drugs where the good outweighs the bad. Wouldn’t it be great if we could reduce the negative side effects from these drugs and still get the positive treatment we need? According to a new study, two nutrients can do just that.

In the study, researchers gave two groups of rats a dose of gentamycin, a commonly used antibiotic that causes kidney damage. They gave the first group of mice only the gentamycin. But they gave the second group CoQ10 and green tea, individually and in combination, before giving them the antibiotic.

The mice in the first group had significant deterioration in common blood test markers for kidney function, such as BUN and creatinine. But, more importantly, they also had significant free radical-type damage and loss of antioxidant enzymes in their kidney cells.

But the rats in the second group, given the nutrients, did not suffer the renal damage found in the first group. They also had less free radical damage and more antioxidant enzymes in their kidney cells. The results were "most dramatic," according to the researchers, when both nutrients were combined.

All drugs have toxicity — even the good ones. And you can reduce, if not eliminate, much toxicity simply by increasing your antioxidant levels. I’ve already told you how antioxidants protect you from the side effects of chemotherapy in cancer treatment. But you can also reduce Tylenol toxicity by raising glutathione in your liver. This is true for many other drugs.

Modern medicine ignores that the sickest people, those requiring the most drugs, are usually the most nutritionally depleted. So they suffer most of the dangerous side effects. However, we could eliminate much of this damage with supplements or a Living Foods Diet, which is loaded with antioxidant protection.

If you need a drug of any kind, please be sure that your diet is the best it can be. Better, don’t wait until you need a drug. It’s too late by then. It takes some time to increase blood levels of antioxidants once you begin. So please improve your diet today. If you cannot do this or just want the added protection, then consider a supplement such as Healthy Resolve’s Max Plus (call 800-728-2288 to order). A good diet and supplements could protect you if you should suddenly need to take a drug. And it could help prevent the need at all.

Ref: "Modification of biochemical parameters of gentamycin nephrotoxicity by coenzyme Q10 and green tea in rats," Upaganlawar A, Farswan M, et al, Indian J Exp Biol, 2006; 44(5): 416-418.


Indian Herb Relieves Side Effects of Chemotherapy

I don't have to tell you how rough chemotherapy can be on your body. It can cause hair loss, diarrhea, mouth ulcers, low blood count and loss of appetite, vomiting and more.

But that's not all. While chemotherapy can and does kill cancer cells, it also kills healthy ones. Many times, chemotherapy kills the patient before the cancer does!

Unfortunately, it's difficult to talk friends and loved ones out of taking chemo. That's why I was really glad to hear about an  herbal preparation from India that can reduce chemotherapy's toxic effects.

Dr. Srivastava, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi, reported on 214 breast cancer patients receiving  triple chemo. He divided the patients into two groups. The first group, which was the control, had only chemotherapy. The  second group had chemo with the herbal treatment.

Dr. Srivastava used a product called Maharishi amrit kalash. This is an Ayurvedic food supplement made up of a variety of  herbs and minerals. Its manufacturers say it has 1,000 times the antioxidant power of vitamins C and E.

Doctors will often tell you to shun protective antioxidants. They fear these vitamins will interfere with the chemo's effects on your cancer. But, there's no credible evidence that this happens. And, as you'll see from the results of this study, this preparation can greatly help your ability to tolerate chemo -- allowing it to fight the cancer better.

In the study, Maharishi amrit kalash reduced the number of people with vomiting by almost half! It also reduced the number of  people with appetite loss by 36%. Perhaps most strikingly, the number of chemo patients who rated their quality of  life as  'poor' was reduced by a whopping 61%.

Unfortunately, the risks of hair loss, diarrhea, mouth ulcers, and low blood count were not changed. Still, these are fantastic results. If someone you know takes chemo, make sure they get their hands on some Maharishi amrit kalash. You can find it online at http://www.mapi.com/ and by phone at 800-255-8332.

Yours for better health and medical freedom,
Robert Jay Rowen, MD


ANTIOXIDANTS AND CHEMO -- THE LAST WORD?

As you know, I don't ever recommend chemo for anyone. But if you insist on "listening to your doctor," at least you should be aware that the most respected chemotherapy journal has now weighed in with an article saying that Vitamin C is a wonderful way to offset the side effects of the chemo and has no adverse effects. Here's the article on it from Dr. Rowen's newsletter:

Why This Vitamin Is a Must for Cancer Treatment

Doctors often warn chemotherapy patients against taking antioxidants. Where they get this nonsense is beyond me. But here is a brand new study that shows you how ridiculous their thinking is.

The study found that vitamin C, one of conventional medicine’s banned vitamins, may actually sensitize cancer cells to chemotherapy drugs. You read that right! It might actually make chemotherapy drugs more effective.

In the study, patients took vitamin C along with the common chemotherapy drugs 5-FU and cisplatin.

The researchers found that vitamin C altered the DNA of the cancer, which made it more sensitive to chemotherapy. They also found that vitamin C actually improves the cancer-fighting ability of the drugs.

I can’t tell you how many of my colleagues were severely harassed for suggesting that their patients take antioxidants as part of their cancer treatment. When I lived in Anchorage, oncologists repeatedly condemned me for the same reason. I hope this new information, which was published in one of their respected journals, will change their minds on this.

In my experience, I’ve seen vitamin C protect patients against the devastating effects of chemotherapy. I’ve even seen it make the chemo work better. And I’ve found that it will help prevent many patients from losing their hair.

If you or anyone you know is using chemotherapy, this is life-saving information. Make sure the oncologist sees this article. The cancer you kill, and the hair you save, might be your own.

Yours for better health and medical freedom, Robert Jay Rowen, MD"

Abdellatif, et al. “Vitamin C enhances chemosensitization of esophageal cancer cells in vitro.” J Chemother, 2005;17 (5):539-549.

See: http://www.beating-cancer-gently.com/archives.html


Another Supplement Cancer Patients Must Take

If you've got cancer and are using chemotherapy to treat it, you're at the center of a very hot controversy. Conventional doctors insist you shouldn't take antioxidants while on chemo. But many trailblazing alternative doctors, including yours truly, believe just the opposite. And with good reason.

In Anchorage, I was ostracized for giving my chemo patients antioxidants. It was clear that my patients were benefiting from them. The local medical mob even brought up paid "assassins" to rile the local doctors in hospital speeches against cancer nutritional therapy. Fortunately, we already had a medical freedom law in place protecting me. And my patients had a huge advantage over other patients who stuck with the conventional treatment alone.

In the past, I've told you about some of the supplements I used. CoQ10 is important for protecting you from toxicity. And vitamin C actually makes the chemo even more effective. But now there's evidence that vitamin E is vital for cancer patients on chemo.

According to a new study, vitamin E can reduce the damage to nerves caused by the chemo drug cisplatin by a stunning two-thirds. The researchers gave vitamin E to one group of patients on cisplatin, but not to a control group. The group not receiving vitamin E had a whopping 68.5% risk of nerve damage. Just 600 mg daily of vitamin E reduced that risk to only 21.4%. Further, those taking vitamin E that did get toxicity had significantly less damage.

Action to take: I do believe chemotherapy has its place in cancer treatment. In fact, if you came to see me to treat your cancer, I would not try to talk you into or out of any therapy. I would just lay out all the possibilities. You make the decision. It's your body. If you decide on conventional chemo, bless you.

However, you can be protected from the terrible toxicity and have a better result with cheap nutrition! Please don't let your oncologist mislead you about supplements while on chemo. This truth has been out for years. The best cancer management combines the best of both worlds!

Yours for better health and medical freedom,
Robert Jay Rowen, MD

Ref: Support Care Cancer, 2006; 14(11): 1134-40.


Warning: Imaging Tests Can Damage Kidneys, Increase Stroke and Heart Attack Risk
by S. L. Baker, features writer

(NaturalNews) No matter what your health complaint is, if you go see your doctor you might end up undergoing some kind of high tech imaging procedure such as cardiac angiography, CT (computed tomography) or MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). According to a study published last fall in the journal Health Affairs, medical imaging has soared over the last few years across all types of these tests, doubling the annual medical cost per patient. In fact, the study confirmed previous reports that patients are far-too-often being subjected to unnecessary imaging.

At least, most of these tests are minimally invasive and thoroughly studied to make sure they carry few risks so they are safe, right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. New reports of lasting, health-harming effects from some imaging tests are accumulating. A case in point: a new study just published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society Nephrology (CJASN) warns that seemingly minor and reversible kidney damage injury which can arise after undergoing certain common medical imaging procedures is a serious health threat. The reason? It is linked to a greatly increased risk of stroke, heart attack and death.

University of Vermont physician Richard Solomon,MD, and his colleagues investigated 294 patients with kidney disease who were exposed to contrast agents during cardiac angiography. Patients in this study, dubbed the CARE (Cardiac Angiography in REnally Impaired Patients) trial, were randomly divided with half receiving the contrast agent iopamidol and the other receiving the contrast agent iodixanol.

Many medical imaging techniques, including cardiac angiography and CT scans, often involve the use of contrast agents, substances that contain iodine (like iopamidol and iodixanol) and barium, because they enhance the contrast between body structures or fluids within the body. This allows blood vessels and changes in tissues to be more clearly visualized.

When Dr. Solomon and his colleagues followed the CARE patients for one year or longer, they found that 92 (31 percent) of the research subjects experienced negative health effects after their imaging test. Their risk of having a stroke or heart attack over the next year or two after the test was elevated. Overall, 38 (13 percent) of the patients experienced a major event, such as death, stroke, heart attack, or end-stage renal disease. Those who developed contrast-induced kidney injuries had twice as many long-term negative health effects compared with patients who didn't suffer kidney damage.

It isn't only people who already have problems with their kidneys who can be at risk from the imaging testing,either. Doctors have long known exposure to contrast agents can cause damage in seemingly healthy kidneys, but patients are usually assured this is just a temporary side effect that will resolve on its own. However, recent studies have suggested that contrast-induced kidney damage might actually be lasting and serious. In a statement to the media, the University of Vermont researchers said "the CARE trial findings should prompt investigators to design additional studies on the long-term negative health effects of contrast-induced kidney damage".

In addition to kidney damage, the contrast agent iopamidol has also been known to sometimes cause seizures in people with a history of epilepsy. However, in rare case reports, including one published earlier this year in the Internet Journal of Neurology, iopamidol has been found to cause severe seizures and respiratory arrest in non-epileptic patients undergoing imaging tests.

As reported in Natural News last April (http://www.naturalnews.com/026001.html), the use of contrast agents isn't the only potentially dangerous downside to some common imaging procedures. A study in the medical journal Radiology found that people who had numerous CT scans over their lifetime had a significantly increased risk of cancer. In fact, CT scans increased the risk of cancer by 2.7 to 12 percent.
---

CT Scans Raise Cancer Risk
by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

(NaturalNews) A new study just published in the April issue of the medical journal Radiology has a sobering conclusion for anyone who thinks "non-invasive" CT scans are simply pain-free, high tech medical marvels with no downside. The research shows that people who undergo numerous computed tomography (CT) scans over their lifetime may be at a significantly increased risk of cancer.

In fact, seven percent of the patients studied had enough recurrent CT testing to raise their estimated cancer risk by one percent or more above the baseline US cancer risk rate of 42 percent. Among the patients in the top percentile of cumulative lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer, CT scans increased their chances of malignancies by 2.7 to 12 percent.

According to the Radiological Society of North America, some 68.7 million CT exams were performed in the U.S. in 2008 -- that's 6 million more than were performed in 2006. CT is commonly used to make medical diagnoses and to help figure out treatment options because the scanning technique provides detailed images of internal organs through digital imaging processing which generates a three-dimensional picture. To accomplish this, CT scanning involves taking a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images around a single axis of rotation. The result is that CT scans use higher radiation doses than most other imaging exams.

For their study, Aaron Sodickson, M.D., Ph.D., assistant director of Emergency Radiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and researcher at the Center for Evidence-Based Imaging in Boston, and his research team developed new methodology to estimate the cumulative radiation exposure for CT scans and the associated radiation-induced cancer risks for individual patients. The scientists took each patient's CT history from electronic medical records and applied standard risk estimation models using a formula which takes into account the patient's gender and age at time of x-ray exposure.

In all, some 31,462 adult patients were studied. All had diagnostic CT scans at Brigham and Women's Hospital or the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in 2007 and had undergone a total of 190,712 CT exams over the previous 22 years. About 33 percent of the research subjects underwent five or more lifetime CT exams, five percent had more than 22 CT scans, and approximately one percent underwent more than 38 exams. Fifteen percent received estimated cumulative effective radiation doses of more than 100 millisieverts (mSv) -- equal to the radiation from 1,000 chest x-rays. Four percent received a whopping radiation exposure of more than 250 mSv and one percent were subjected to over 399 mSv.

"CT is an excellent diagnostic tool of tremendous clinical value in many situations," Dr. Sodickson said in a statement released to the media. "Individual decisions about its use should balance the expected clinical benefits against the potential cumulative risks of recurrent imaging."

"However, we feel that a higher clinical threshold is warranted in patients undergoing a large amount of recurrent CT imaging, particularly if many of their prior CT scans have been negative. This scenario may result in a combination of high cumulative risk with low clinical benefit," he added.

Dr. Sodickson also pointed out that the techniques implemented in his group's study could be used to identify higher risk patients who might benefit from "enhanced radiation protection efforts". This statement is of particular interest because it appears to indicate better radiation protection is available -- although clearly not being routinely used.

Other scientists have previously urged restraint in using CT scans too often and have sounded alarms over the radiation exposure associated with the technology. For example, in 2007, writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, David J. Brenner, Ph.D., and Eric J. Hall, Ph.D., from the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, argued that the potential cancer-causing effects from using CT scans might be underestimated or overlooked. In fact, they stated one third of all CT scans performed in the United States may not even be medically necessary.
---

Selenium - Another Supplement You Must Take if You’re on Chemotherapy
by Dr. Rowen

One of the most difficult tasks I had to confront during my tenure in Alaska was facing arrogant, closed-minded oncologists. They were absolutely intent on poisoning their patients with chemotherapy.

They also instilled terrible fear and trepidation in their patients. Many of them threatened to walk away from the case if the patients saw me for nutritional protection. I saw my role as protecting them from the chemicals poured into their bodies. They scorned me for trying to help.

Through the years, more and more studies show that antioxidants protect from the ravages of chemo and assist in the benefits (yes, there are benefits if used correctly). I’ve told you in the past about vitamin C and others. But one of the best and cheapest supplements I used to protect my patients from the poison was selenium. And now there’s evidence that confirms what I’ve seen for years.

Researchers in Egypt studied 30 patients with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma). They randomized the patients to receive chemo alone or chemo with selenium (as sodium selenite).

Those given selenium received 0.2 mg per kilogram of weight per day. That’s 14 mg for an average-sized man like me (about 70 times the daily dose found in most multiple vitamins). Patients receiving selenium had significantly higher levels of neutrophils. These are white blood cells not directly connected with the cancer. Neutrophils protect you against bacteria. The patients consequently had a much lower infection rate.

The selenium group also had a better ejection fraction from their hearts. One known side effect of chemo is it damages (often permanently) the pumping ability of your heart. The selenium prevented that toxic effect.

I know many alternative-minded cancer patients opt for conventional chemotherapy. That’s all their insurance and Medicare will cover. Your oncologist might be similarly close-minded. But you can still protect yourself. Selenium is a great place to start. But don’t stop there. I also recommend vitamin C, vitamin E, CoQ10, NAC, glutathione precursors (undenatured whey protein), and green tea. These might save your heart, immune system, and bone marrow from unnecessary destruction.

Please see your integrative physician for advice on personal dosing. I don’t recommend undergoing conventional chemotherapy or radiation without significant antioxidant protection, either by IV, mouth, or both.


When You're Most Susceptible to Cancer

You may know that too much stress leads to heart disease and deadly heart attacks. But did you know that a lot of cancer cases suddenly appear after a prolonged period of stress?

Doctors have seen this in their patients for some time. But they never had scientific evidence to connect the two. But now we have it.

Researchers have discovered that your body makes a hormone called noradrenalin when you're under stress. Noradrenalin, as you can tell from its name, is very similar to adrenaline. Like adrenaline, it's also made by your adrenals and it produces impulses in your brain akin to feelings of excitement.

However, the researchers found that noradrenalin also stimulates two enzymes called metalloproteinases. These enzymes dissolve the tissue around tumors, which enables cancer cells to move into the newly vacated areas.

Noradrenalin may also stimulate the tumor cells to release a chemical called vascular endothelial growth factor or VEGF. VEGF stimulates new arteries to grow, which delivers blood to feed the growing cancer. VEGF can speed the growth and spread of cancer.

Stress is necessary for life. We can't live, learn, and grow without it. A runner must stress his body to achieve victory. The physicist must stress hours over how to set up a nuclear reaction.

Like everything else, though, there's a balance. Go too far beyond that balance for too long and stress becomes your enemy. In fact, if the body produces noradrenalin for too long, cancer becomes much more likely.

Much of what we worry about never comes to fruition. And the rest? We can't do much about it. Have you ever seen worry change the outcome of anything?

There are some things you can do to avoid cancer-causing stress. The first is to take up meditation or prayer to give yourself some quiet time. Many studies have shown that people who meditate and pray lead much healthier lives.

Also try drinking some chamomile tea in the evening to settle your body down. If you're very stressed, I suggest you try taking the homeopathic Rescue Remedy, which is available at most health food stores.

And if you haven't learned to do so yet, there's no time like now to practice unconditional forgiveness and love. Love rests the soul and forgiveness rests the mind, that otherwise would be stimulating your brain to make lots of noradrenalin.

Yours for better health and medical freedom,
Robert Jay Rowen, MD

Ref: Cancer Research November 1, 2006; 66(21): 10357-10364; Science Daily November 3, 2006.


How Flying Increases Your Risk of Disease -- And How to Protect Yourself (Note: the below also applies to radiation therapy and chemotherapy)

Did you know that flying in an airplane exposes you to radiation? In fact, one cross-country trip can net you the equivalent radiation of one chest x-ray. That's one x-ray too many for me. Each time you expose your body to radiation, it increases your risk for DNA damage, premature aging, and cancer.

If you fly a lot, this is especially bad news. But a new study shows there's an easy way to protect yourself when you fly.

This study showed that cells cultured with my favorite free radical scavengers (i.e., antioxidants) almost completely protected the cells from radiation. The researchers used vitamin C, CoQ10, alpha lipoic acid, selenium, N-acetyl cysteine, and vitamin E succinate.

The antioxidants completely or nearly completely protected the cells from a variety of radiation sources. That includes even the highly damaging gamma radiation.  You will find all of the radiation sources they tested in space or high altitude.

Action to take: If you fly, look for a single supplement containing the above nutrients. Further, if you need an x-ray or any other diagnostic test that uses radiation, make sure you take these nutrients before the test. There are multitudes of quality
antioxidant supplements on the Internet and in health food stores.

Yours for better health and medical freedom,
Robert Jay Rowen, MD


Low vitamin intake makes chemotherapy side effects even worse

NewsTarget.com printable article Originally published July 8 2004

Chemotherapy is bad enough to begin with -- it's an entirely unproven therapy, with absolutely no scientific merit. It doesn't improve a person's lifespan a single day, and yet it remains a widespread treatment for cancer.

Minimizing the side effects of chemotherapy (which is, after all, an extremely toxic procedure) remains one of the top priorities for patients and doctors alike. And one of the best ways to do that, research shows, is to take your vitamins. Patients with vitamin deficiencies suffered the worst side effects of leukemia, while those with high vitamin intake had greatly reduced side effects.

But here's the rest of the story you won't find in the press: taking even small doses of chlorella before undergoing chemotherapy has been scientifically shown to dramatically increase the survival rate. If you or anyone you know is considering chemotherapy, I strongly urge you to read the full account of this research in my free online book, Superfoods For Optimum Health. There, you'll read about research that shows patients who took chlorella supplements absolutely stunned doctors with their miraculous survival rates. Better yet, they largely avoided the nasty side effects of chemotherapy.

The bottom line? Avoid chemotherapy in the first place. But if you're crazy enough to actually undergo this barbaric treatment for cancer, take loads of chlorella: you'll live longer and have far fewer side effects.

Secret #2: Just take chlorella and skip the chemotherapy. Add spirulina to your diet, avoid sodium nitrite, stop eating all processed foods, white starch, sugar, and you'll probably cure your own cancer anyway. Modern treatments for cancer are largely a sham to begin with. Read Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss for details.


Questioning Chemotherapy: A Critique of the Use of Toxic Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer by Ralph Moss
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188102525X/

From the Author: Hi! I'm Ralph Moss, author of Questioning Chemotherapy. I want to tell you how and why I came to write this book. I started as a believer in chemotherapy. As a science writer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, I wrote articles praising the latest advances in chemotherapy. I was impressed by the then-emerging cures for Hodgkin's disease, acute lymphocytic leukemia and some other relatively rare cancers. At the same time, I began to learn how skeptical many good scientists were about chemotherapy's future. The major objection to "chemo" was that these drugs did not discriminate between normal and cancerous cells, but attacked all rapidly dividing cells. One scientist described this method as "trying to melt a patient's left ear, while leaving the right one alone." It seemed particularly inappropriate in the treatment of solid tumors of adults, which are often slow-growing.

Because chemotherapy drugs were general cellular poisons, they could be terribly toxic. They were also very expensive for patients and for society as a whole. When I learned about the links between the pharmaceutical industry and the cancer establishment (later detailed in my book, The Cancer Industry) I understood the commercial reason that such an inadequate modality was so heavily promoted.

In 1989, a German biostatistician named Ulrich Abel, Ph.D. published a groundbreaking monograph called "Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer. It made few waves in the U.S. and soon went out of print. In this excellent work, however, Dr. Abel rigorously demonstrated that chemotherapy had never been scientifically proven to extend life through randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the vast majority of "epithelial cancers." These are the common types of carcinoma that affect most cancer patients in the Western world.

Some years later, in response to many requests, I decided to write a critical book about chemotherapy (a sort of companion piece to Cancer Therapy). I took Abel's out-of-print work as my starting point, but also consulted the work of many other students of chemotherapy. In this book, I update statistics and speak about all cancers and not just carcinomas. I go into depth on the politics and economics of the chemotherapy industry, on the biases, fallacies and frauds that occur, and on ways of warding off the sometimes catastrophic side effects that accompany this treatment.

The essential point of the book is that one must question the measure of success in chemotherapy. Oncologists have tended to equate an increasing percentage of "responses" with progress. However, responses are generally measurements of tumor shrinkage, for as little as one month's duration. One cannot automatically assume that a response--even a complete response--will lead to increased survival. One must look for increased survival. Yet the number of cancers for which life prolongation through chemotherapy has been proven through randomized clinical trials is very small. (I do bend over backwards to point these out, when they occur.)

So when a doctor says her regimen yields a 40 percent response rate, "what exactly is she promising, a short-term shrinkage of tumors -- or actual life-prolongation? What effect is this treatment likely to have on the patient's quality of life? And what is the cost?" It is only by obtaining information such as this that patients are able to make rational treatment choices. Questioning Chemotherapy is intended to help patients by providing them with a critical perspective on this now dominant modality.

Book Description:  A revealing critique of chemotherapy, this book looks objectively at chemo's successes and failures.


Breast Cancer (from: http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA400060 by Dr. Weil)

Question: No More Tamoxifen (for Breast Cancer)?
My mother had breast cancer so I always considered myself at high risk and was planning to take tamoxifen for prevention. I just heard that it won't help. Why not?
Answer: (Published 10/23/2006) Tamoxifen is an oral drug that blocks the effects of estrogen, the hormone that promotes the growth of some types of breast cancer. Tamoxifen has been used for many years to prevent recurrences of estrogen-receptor-positive breast tumors – that is, tumors that need estrogen to grow. In 1998, results of a study involving more than 13,000 women showed that tamoxifen can also lower the risk of breast cancer among healthy women, cutting the anticipated number of cases by 49 percent. However, until recently, no study looked at tamoxifen's effects on overall survival.

The latest on tamoxifen comes from an analysis showing that the drug doesn't change the life expectancy of many of the women who take it to prevent breast cancer. This is because of serious side effects: increased risks of cataracts, deep vein thromboses, endometrial cancer and uterine sarcoma, and strokes. In addition, women who do develop breast cancer while taking tamoxifen preventively are more likely to have estrogen-receptor-negative tumors, which are more aggressive and deadly.

Researchers at the University of California, Davis, looked at how all the tamoxifen-associated health risks affect life expectancy. Considering the impact of these health problems, the researchers found no benefit to taking tamoxifen preventively for women at the low end of the risk spectrum. While there was an improvement in life expectancy seen in this study, it was mainly among women who had hysterectomies and therefore were no longer at risk of developing any type of uterine cancer while on tamoxifen. Women who had not had hysterectomies would benefit only if their risk of breast cancer exceeded three percent over five years.

The study also looked at how much it would cost to save a single life at the current U.S. price of tamoxifen: a whopping $1,335,690 per year. In Canada, where drug prices are much lower than they are in the U.S., the cost per year of life saved was a far more modest $123,780. Even at Canadian drug prices, tamoxifen only seemed to improve life expectancy when a women's 5-year risk of developing breast cancer was at least 4 percent.

Bear in mind that tamoxifen isn't the only breast cancer prevention strategy. You may be able to reduce your risks by lowering your estrogen levels through lifestyle changes: get more exercise, reduce or eliminate alcohol consumption, eat hormone-free beef and dairy products (if you eat those foods), and have a first baby earlier in life rather than later. Eat soybeans and whole soy foods frequently, plus plenty of fresh organic fruits and vegetables and cold-water fish or flaxseed for their omega-3 fatty acids. Don't take birth control pills and, at menopause, avoid hormone replacement therapy.

Bottom line: unless you're at very high risk of breast cancer, taking tamoxifen preventively is unlikely to affect your lifespan. You can calculate your personal risks by logging on to www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/ and answering the questions on the risk assessment form.

Andrew Weil, M.D.


Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew) http://www.newstarget.com/010886.html 

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman's chances of survival by at least 17 percent.
The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.

Effectiveness of Mammography
Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.
At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or "false negatives." Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.

Radiation Risks
Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.

According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.

Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.

Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.

The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it." Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.

Navigating the Statistics
While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40 percent in the
United States.

Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases. While the matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms.

The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.

Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they may even do more harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.

New Screening Technologies
While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.

Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.

The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:
Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation. -- The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance. --  Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23

"The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer. -- Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment. -- The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537

No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized. -- The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23

The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing large-scale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.  -- The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291

A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women. -- Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21

Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
(From Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588)

In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540

Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammograms correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent. -- The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104

Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer. -- Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132

The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premenopausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premenopausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning. -- The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544

High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.  -- Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

"Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women." -- Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%."  -- Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467

Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings. -- Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms. -- Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42

Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.  -- The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305

Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!  -- Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123

As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976). -- The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.  -- Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film. -- The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).  -- Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47

In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts. -- Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12

One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died  -- from The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57

One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.  -- When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233

Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers. -- The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were non-infiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival. -- Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.  -- The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53

Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234 For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities. -- Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587


Multiple dietary antioxidants enhance the efficacy of standard and experimental cancer therapies and decrease their toxicity. -- Prasad KN. Center for Vitamin and Cancer Research, Department of Radiology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver. kedar.prasad@uchsc.edu.

Cancer patients can be divided into 3 groups: those receiving standard or experimental therapy, those who have become unresponsive to these therapies, and those in remission at risk for recurrence or a second new cancer.

While impressive progress in standard cancer therapy has been made, the value of this therapy in the management of solid tumors may have reached a plateau. At present, there is no strategy to reduce the risk of recurrence of the primary tumors or of a second cancer among survivors.

Patients unresponsive to standard or experimental therapies have little option except for poor quality of life for the remainder of life. Therefore, additional approaches should be developed to improve the efficacy of current management of cancer.

In this review, the author proposes that an active nutritional protocol that includes high doses of multiple dietary antioxidants and their derivatives (vitamin C, alpha-tocopherol succinate, and natural beta-carotene), but not endogenously made antioxidants (glutathione- and antioxidant enzyme-elevating agents), when administered as an adjunct to radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or experimental therapy, may improve its efficacy by increasing tumor response and decreasing toxicity.

This nutritional protocol can also be used when patients become unresponsive to standard therapy or experimental therapy to improve quality of life and possibly increase the survival time.

The authors also propose that after completion of standard therapy and/or experimental therapy, a maintenance nutritional protocol that contains lower doses of antioxidants and their derivatives, together with modification in diet and lifestyle, may reduce the risk of recurrence of the original tumor and development of a second cancer among survivors.

Experimental data and limited human studies suggest that use of these nutritional approaches may improve oncologic outcomes and decrease toxicity. This review also discusses the reasons for the current debates regarding the use of antioxidants during radiation or chemotherapy.

PMID: 15523102 [Pub Med - in process]
Integr Cancer Ther. 2004 Dec;3(4):310-22.


Cachexia  (from HSI e-Alert - Crossed Purposes,   Feb 15, 2006)
An HSI member named Pam sent an e-mail with this question: "Do you have any information on Chronic Fatigue? I have a friend who has cancer. She said she is always tired and thinks she has chronic fatigue."

It sounds like Pam's friend may be suffering from a condition called cachexia that affects people with cancer and other chronic diseases. Cachexia symptoms include a general loss of vitality characterized by poor appetite, weight loss, decomposition of muscle, and depression.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of cachexia is that doctors may unwittingly add to the problem with well meaning advice that is outdated and off the mark.

--------------------------------------------
Nutrients get the boot
--------------------------------------------

In a 2003 study of 200 patients with cachexia, UK researchers found that a daily high-calorie/high-protein supplement, enriched with vitamins C and E, and about 2 grams of omega-3 fatty acids prompted a significantly higher rate of weight gain, increased lean body mass and improved quality of life compared to subjects who received a similar supplement, but without the added vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids.

Unfortunately, many doctors would reject this type of supplement regimen because of a belief that antioxidants interfere with chemotherapy and radiation therapies. Some of these types of cytotoxic therapies create free radicals that may help kill cancer cells. Researchers have theorized that antioxidant supplements might impede cytotoxic therapies. Some even suggest that patients treated with these therapies should avoid antioxidant-rich foods, which would cut virtually all fruits and vegetables from a cancer patient's diet.

This theory was given a boost late last year with an article that appeared in the journal CA - A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (published by the American Cancer Society). The article was written by Gabriella M. D'Andrea, M.D., of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. And the title of the article tells you just about everything you need to know about its content: "Use of Antioxidants During Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy Should Be Avoided."

In the e-Alert "What Would Hippocrates Do?" (10/4/05), I offered a rebuttal to Dr. D'Andrea's concept of denying key nutrients from patients who need them most. Now others have added their own rebuttals, and they need to be heard and clearly understood by any cancer patient whose doctor believes that antioxidants may do harm.

--------------------------------------------
Call and response
--------------------------------------------

On the web site for CA - A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, several doctors and nutritionists have submitted their reactions to Dr. D'Andrea's article.

Hal Gunn, M.D., director of the Centre for Integrated Healing in Vancouver, B.C., Canada, writes: "Belief and opinion do not constitute science." He notes that Dr. D'Andrea doesn't mention any of the studies in the "growing substantial body of supportive evidence" that demonstrate the significant benefits of antioxidant use during chemo and radiation.

A clinical nutritionist named Neil E. Levine offers a more exhaustive rebuttal; complete with footnotes identifying many of the studies Dr. Gunn refers to. Here's a sampling of Mr. Levine's antioxidant defense:

- Radiation and chemo treatments have been enhanced by vitamin E use (Clinical Cancer Research, 2002)

-Vitamin E and selenium enhanced the effects of anticancer drugs (Pathology & Oncology Research, 2005)

-Vitamins C and E have been shown to improve side effects of free radical damage to normal cells caused by radiation and chemo (Integrated Cancer Therapies, 2004)

-Prostate cancer cell cultures were sensitive to lycopene, which increased apoptosis (spontaneous cell death) and arrested the cell cycle (Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 2005)

-Recent studies show vitamin E may induce apoptosis in a wide variety of cancers, including breast, prostate, lung, colon, ovarian and cervical (Journal of Nutrition, 2004)

-Several studies have demonstrated that antioxidants lessen side effects of chemo (Integrated Cancer Therapies, 2004)

-Harsh radiation side effects were reduced with high doses of beta-carotene and vitamin E (Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005)

-CoQ10 enhanced the efficacy of tamoxifen (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, 2005)

Mr. Levine also offers this quote from Patrick Quillin, Ph.D., the director of Nutrition, Cancer Treatment Centers of America: "Malnutrition actually kills about 40 percent of cancer patients."

If you're being treated for cancer by a doctor who believes that antioxidants may interfere with your therapy, share this information with him and discuss the possibility that antioxidant use may in fact be one of the keys to cancer treatment success.


High Doses of Antioxidants Including Vitamin C Do Not Decrease the Efficacy of Chemotherapy

The idea that the use of antioxidants decreases the efficacy of chemotherapy is being used more and more by orthodox oncologists. It is based upon their hypothesis that anything which decreases the oxidant effect of drugs will decrease the efficacy of chemotherapy. More and more I hear this from my patients after they are diagnosed and chemotherapy is discussed with them by their oncologists. This opinion is not universal but my guess is that about 75% of oncologists hold this view.

The view that chemotherapy destroys tumor tissue because it introduces powerful oxidation products, free radicals and that anything which decreases that must interfere with treatment. They know they are using sub-lethal amounts of toxic compounds that would never pass FDA standards in any different context.

The aim is to kill all the tumor tissue without killing all the other tissues in the body. This is always a close call. Therefore, since vitamin C is a good antioxidant it must not be given with chemotherapy. One of my patients was told by his oncologist that if he took vitamin C he would not be given any chemotherapy.

Well, what are the facts? The first fact is that there are no clinical series which show that patients given vitamin C and chemotherapy fare worse than those not given this vitamin. On the contrary, all the published series show just the opposite. I have treated over 1,100 cases with large doses of vitamin C and most of them had chemotherapy.(1-4). I have examined the follow up data and find that the mean difference on prolongation of life was heavily in favor of the use of the vitamins. In the first series I published with Linus Pauling those patients on my program lived 10 to 20 times as long as the patients not receiving the vitamin.

Recently Kedar N. Prasad et al (5) after reviewing 71 scientific papers, found no evidence that antioxidants did interfere with the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy and, on the contrary, suggest that the hypothesis that it would increase the efficacy. He is properly cautious, but anyone reading his paper knows that is clear the probability that these antioxidants prevent the therapeutic activity of chemotherapy is very low, and the probability that they do the opposite, i.e. enhance the action of these toxic drugs, is relatively high.

Prasad et al (6) concluded, "Antioxidants such as retinoids, vitamin E, vitamin C and carotenoids inhibit the growth of cancer cells. These antioxidants individually and in combination, enhance the effects of x-irradiation, chemotherapeutic agents, and certain biological response modifiers such as hyperthermia, sodium butyrate, and interferon, on cancer cells. Antioxidants individually protect normal cells against some of the toxicities produced by these therapeutic agents. Therefore, the fear of oncologists and radiation therapists that these antioxidants may protect cancer cells against free radicals that are generated by these agents is unfounded. It should be pointed out that other antioxidants such as sulfhydryl compounds will protect cancer cells at least against radiation damage.

This is not true for any of the proposed antioxidants vitamins and carotenoids."

Even earlier Charles B. Simone et al (7) on the basis of a large number of clinical studies (he also examined 71 scientific papers) came to the same conclusion. He reported "In a recent study of 50 patients with early-stage breast cancer I evaluated the treatment side effects of radiation alone, or radiation combined with chemotherapy, while the patients took therapeutic doses of nutrients. Patients also followed the Simone Ten Point Plan.

Patients were asked to evaluate their own response to the treatment in terms of its impact on the quality of life. The results of the study were impressive. "More than 90% of both groups noted improvement in their physical symptoms, cognitive ability, performance, sexual function, general well-being and life satisfaction. Not one subject in either group reported a worsening of symptoms." He concluded, "...cancer patients should modify their lifestyles using the Ten Point Plan, which included modifying nutritional factors and taking certain vitamins and minerals especially if they are receiving chemotherapy, and/or radiation."

Labriola et al (8) concluded that vitamin C may prevent the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy if given concurrently and recommended that antioxidants be withheld until after the chemotherapy is completed. It is not clear whether they meant that the antioxidants should be withheld throughout the entire series of chemotherapy sessions or that is should be withheld only for the day that chemotherapy is given. If the latter is his suggestion, there is no harm done to the patients. Most of them cannot take anything, including vitamins, during these sessions.

He based his conclusions on one case which suggested this had happened and upon a hypothetical examination of the role of free radicals and antioxidants on the action of chemotherapy on cancer cells.

His report elicited two rebuttals, Reilly (9) and Gignac (10). I will not repeat the arguments, but it was evident that Dr. Labriola was not convinced by the points put forward by Reilly and Gignac. I think the factoid repeated by Dr. Labriola would have a much better chance of becoming a fact if he had considered the following points:

1) What is the therapeutic value of chemotherapy without any antioxidants? Even within the field of standard oncology there is a debate whether chemotherapy has any merit except for a small number of cancers (Moss 11). Before one can claim that a treatment has been inhibited, surely there must be pretty good evidence that treatment has any merit to begin with.

It is possible (we do not know the probability for this) that chemotherapy interferes with the therapeutic value of the antioxidants. Almost all the studies testing large doses of vitamin C yielded positive results while there was no such unanimity with respect to chemotherapy.

The above is a letter by Dr. Abram Hoffer, founder of Orthomolecular Medicine


Introduction to Antioxidant Use in Cancer Therapy

Dietary and endogenous antioxidants prevent cellular damage by reacting with and eliminating oxidizing free radicals. However, in cancer treatment, a mode of action of certain chemotherapeutic agents involves the generation of free radicals to cause cellular damage and necrosis of malignant cells.

So a concern has logically developed as to whether exogenous antioxidant compounds taken concurrently during chemotherapy could reduce the beneficial effect of chemotherapy on malignant cells. The importance of this concern is underlined by a recent study which estimates 23 percent of cancer patients take antioxidants.1

The study of antioxidant use in cancer treatment is a rapidly evolving area. Antioxidants have been extensively studied for their ability to prevent cancer in humans.2 This paper reviews the use of antioxidants as a therapeutic intervention in cancer patients, and their potential interactions with radiation and chemotherapy. There has been significant investigation of this area, with promising findings which indicate continuing investigation is warranted.

For further discussion of the use of antioxidants as sole cancer therapy, refer to the review article by Prasad published earlier this year.3 A number of reports show a reduction in adverse effects of chemotherapy when given concurrently with antioxidants. These data are more completely summarized by Weijl et al.4

Antioxidant Use in Cancer Therapy

It was suggested in a recent publication that no supplementary antioxidants be given concurrently with chemotherapy agents which employ a free radical mechanism.5 The paper must be commended for pointing out that the combination of antioxidants and chemotherapy agents needs more investigation, and should serve as a wake-up call regarding how much we need further definition of the actions of specific antioxidants with chemotherapeutic agents. However, it should not serve as scientific closure on an adjunctive treatment of possible great promise in cancer therapy.

The present authors are by no means recommending any lack of caution about use of antioxidants. On the contrary, published research indicates the cautious and judicious use of a number of antioxidants can be helpful in the treatment of cancer; as sole agents and as adjuncts to standard radiation and chemotherapy protocols.

It was suggested that antioxidants might interfere with the oxidative mechanisms of alkylating agents.5 These drugs create substantial DNA damage, resulting in cell necrosis. However, recent evidence indicates a sizeable amount of chemotherapy damage is by other mechanisms, which trigger apoptosis.6 Antioxidants have been shown to increase cell death by this mechanism.7,8 Given this, any argument that antioxidants are likely to interfere with most chemotherapy is too simplistic and probably untrue.

Numerous animal studies have been published demonstrating decreased tumor size and/or increased longevity with the combination of chemotherapy and antioxidants.7,9-16 A recent study was conducted on small-cell lung cancer in humans using combination chemotherapy of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (doxorubicin), and vincristine with radiation and a combination of antioxidants, vitamins, trace elements, and fatty acids.

The conclusion was "antioxidant treatment, in combination with chemotherapy and irradiation, prolonged the survival time of patients" compared to expected outcome without the composite oral therapy.17 Two human studies found melatonin plus chemotherapy to induce greater tumor response than chemotherapy alone.18,19 The treatments producing these positive results would have been advised against by those advocating no antioxidant use during chemotherapy. These studies will be discussed in more detail below.

It is the opinion of the authors of this paper that interactions between antioxidants and chemotherapeutics cannot be predicted solely on the basis of presumed mechanism of action. The fact remains that physicians must be aware of the available research to help their patients take advantage of positive interactions existing between antioxidants and chemotherapy or radiation.

Additionally, physicians need to remain aware of the large body of evidence showing a positive effect of antioxidants in the period following chemotherapy administration. The general protocol with standard oncologic therapies is to follow a watch-and-wait strategy after therapeutic administration is concluded.

This is a period when supplemental therapies are highly indicated and have been demonstrated to result in a higher percentage of successful outcomes.20,21

Combinations of Antioxidants

Given that many antioxidants have been shown to have anti-tumor properties, it is worth exploring their use in combination. A study in mice found co-administration of beta-carotene and alpha-tocopherol led to much greater tumor regression than either agent alone. The effect was synergistic, being much greater than the sum of the mild tumor inhibition of beta-carotene and alpha-tocopherol.174 Other studies have shown multivitamin supplements were associated with fewer recurrences of solid tumors after remission following standard oncologic therapies.20,21

A small double-blind trial of a mixture of antioxidants, including 600 mg vitamin E, 1 g vitamin C, and 200 mg NAC taken only during treatment, looked at the potential of this mixture to prevent cardiotoxicity during chemo- and radiotherapy. No patient taking the antioxidant mixture had a fall in ejection fraction greater than 10 percent.

In patients taking placebo, four of six patients undergoing radiotherapy and two of seven patients treated with chemotherapy had an ejection fraction reduction of 10 percent or more. Treatment outcomes in patients taking antioxidants versus placebo were not discussed.175

An open trial of combination antioxidant treatment along with chemotherapy and radiation in patients with small-cell lung cancer had encouraging results. Patients taking the supplement, which contained at least 15,000 IU vitamin A, 10,000 IU beta-carotene, 300 IU alpha-tocopherol, 2 g vitamin C, and 800 mcg selenium, were able to tolerate chemotherapy and radiation well.

Their two-year survival rate was greater than that of historical controls (>33% to <15%), with 44 percent still alive at the end of the study (mean survival time for survivors = 32 months). No side effects from nutritional treatment were noted.17 Hopefully these promising results will be followed up with larger and more well-controlled studies.

Conclusion

Frequently, the effects of using antioxidants concurrent with chemotherapy and radiation are synergistic. Except for three specific interactions outlined above (flavonoids with tamoxifen, NAC with doxorubicin, and beta-carotene with 5-fluorouracil), there is no evidence to date showing that natural antioxidants interfere with conventional cancer therapeutics in vivo.

It has been shown in two separate in vitro studies that NAC inhibits the cytotoxic activity of cisplatin.138,139 NAC may have a role, however, in the reversal of renal toxicity due to cisplatin.140

Other than use in salvage therapy, the combination of cisplatin and NAC should also probably be avoided at this time.

Studies have shown patients treated with antioxidants, with or without chemotherapy and radiation, have many benefits. Patients have been noted to tolerate standard treatment better, experience less weight loss, have a better quality of life, and most importantly, live longer than patients receiving no supplements.

It is time to research the role of these agents in conventional oncologic treatment, rather than dismiss them as a class based on theoretical concerns.

The authors wish to thank Bastyr University for financial support of this project and Robert Karjala and Arnold Gore for this information.


Health e-Tips - Killer grapes (Resveratrol, Cancer and Chemo)
From: Nutrition and Healing - Amanda Ross

A component of red wine does help make your heart healthier. And a new study published in the journal Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology shows that the major antioxidant compound found in red wine may do a whole lot more. Researchers found that it can actually shut down one of the deadliest types of cancer -- pancreatic.

The University of Rochester Medical Center research team looked at the effects of resveratrol, a potent antioxidant found in grape skins and red wine, on pancreatic cancer cells. When they pre-treated the cells with resveratrol prior to exposing them to chemotherapy and radiation, they found that resveratrol made the cells more receptive to the traditional treatment by reducing their capacity to pump the chemo back out.

While that is an undeniably significant discovery, the next one was, in my opinion, even more exciting. The researchers also found that the resveratrol itself caused apoptosis -- or death -- in the cancer cells. Without chemo.

Of course, this is just one study, and as all scientists like to say "more research is needed" before resveratrol will earn a widespread recommendation from oncologists. But any natural substance that can cripple one of the deadliest forms of cancer and give patients hope for a longer, possibly cancer-free life without the additionally devastating effects of radiation or chemo is worth a closer look.

And in the meantime, resveratrol is available from many natural food stores and online vitamin retailers. (Note: the negative effects from the alcohol in the large amount of wine you'd have to drink to get enough resveratrol would outweigh any benefits from the resveratrol, so taking the supplement is healthier than drinking wine).

Yours in good health,

Amanda Ross
Editor
Nutrition & Healing

Sources: "Red wine antioxidant may kill cancer cells," NutraIngredients (www.nutraingredients.com), 3/27/08


Chemotherapy and Radiation (http://www.atihealthnet.com/pages/chemo1.html)

To treat cancer, doctors often prescribe strong treatments like chemotherapy or radiation therapy. While these treatments are effective against the cancer, they also have an adverse effect on the patient's body and result in many unpleasant side effects.

Some of the side effects can be handled, while others just have to be tolerated. However, it's always best to be informed about the possibilities so you can be emotionally and physically prepared to deal with them. Let's discuss the side effects of each treatment in detail:

Side Effects of Chemotherapy:
Cancer cells grow and multiply quickly and anti drugs basically aim to destroy such cells. But there are certain normal cells that also grow and multiply rapidly, and chemotherapy can sometimes affect these cells as well, this is what causes side effects some patients experience.

Side effects vary from person to person, and it is possible that you may have only some or none or all of these side effects. The severity and type of side effects depend on the length of and type of chemotherapy you receive.

Usually side effects go away when the chemotherapy has ended because normal cells have the chance to grow and multiply normally. Most people do not face any long-term problem from chemotherapy, but in some cases chemotherapy can cause permanent changes or damage certain organs.

Some common side effects of chemotherapy are discussed below:

Fatigue:
One of the most common side effects related to chemotherapy is fatigue. Fatigue is a feeling of tiredness and lack of energy. Fatigue faced by cancer patients differs greatly from fatigue faced by normal people. Rest does not always relive this kind of fatigue and it can last for days, weeks or months.

Pain:
Chemotherapy can sometimes damage nerves that can produce a burning sensation or a tingling or shooting pain. Most often this pain occurs in the toes and fingers of the patient. Pain is not faced by everyone who undergoes chemotherapy, but is fairly common. If you feel pain, you do not have top panic because this pain can be relieved. 

Hair Loss:
Another very common side effect of chemotherapy is hair loss, which is also known as alopecia. Not all drugs cause hair loss and you can ask your doctor whether the drug you are going to be taking ill cause hair loss or not. 

Hair loss usually begins several weeks into the treatment and can occur in all parts of the body – underarms, head, face, and legs. In some cases, it so happens that the hair grows back in a different color or texture so you must not be alarmed by such an occurrence.

Nausea and Vomiting:
Often, patients who undergo chemotherapy face feelings of nausea and vomiting, but new drugs considerably reduce such feelings. Different drugs work for different people ad your doctor may be able to advice you on which drug is best suited for you. Make sure you inform your doctor is the feeling of nausea is extreme or vomiting occurs fairly frequently.

Radiation Recall:
Some people who have previously undergone radiation develop a side effect known as radiation recall during their chemotherapy treatment. What actually happens in radiation recall is that the area of skin that had previously been exposed to radiation turns red – the red can be of any shade ranging from bright to dark red. You should inform your doctor about such an occurrence. Radiation recall may last from a few hours to several days.

Some other side effects caused by chemotherapy are: Infection Anemia Kidney and bladder effects Blood clotting Fluid retention Diarrhea Flu-like symptoms Constipation Low platelet count Mouth, gum and throat problems Central nervous system problems Skin and nail effects.

Radiation Therapy

Radiation therapy is very hard on the body and produces heat not only on the radiation site but also all through out the body. It causes burns and also destroys healthy tissue. This must be treated both topically and orally. Topical treatment is placed on the radiation site to decrease the burn on the healthy tissue and preserve it, but also increase the effect of the radiation. 


ImmunPro TM:
ImmunPro is a botanical alternative medicine formulation which provides herbal ingredients that have historically been shown to have anti-viral, anti-bacterial and anti virus activity. Several herbs in this formulation are known for their proven ability to both enhance & strengthen the human immune system.

This immunity support formulation kills germs that cause fevers and infections. ImmunPro also increases the body's natural resistance system, increases the body's capacity to withstand a successful bacterial and/or viral invasion, and boosts the body's ability to recuperate. .

This formulation also provides effective blood purification and detoxification. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of maintaining a healthy supply of blood for proper functioning of the body's immune system.

We believe ‘ImmunPro’ should be tried before surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. In cases where patients have had surgery/chemotherapy/radiation, ‘ImmunPro’ has proven to still be effective against cancer and in helping restore the immune system.  ImmunPro's Ingredients have also proven its effectiveness against all infectious diseases caused by viruses and bacteria, and also against many non-infectious diseases.

These are some of the conditions which ‘ImmunPro's Ingredients’ have proven effective against:

AIDS, allergies, bacterial infections, Bronchitis, Cancer (all types), Candidiasis (yeast), chronic infections, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, common cold, Diabetes, Emphysema, fungal infections, Herpes Simplex, Mononucleosis, parasitic infections, periodontal disease, Pneumonia, radiation exposure, stress, all viral infection and get rid of all the side effects caused by the Chemotherapy and Radiation treatment.

Ingredients: Korean Ginseng, Fo-Ti (Ho shou wu), Astragalus (Astragalus membranaceus), Schizandra, Bupleurum (Bupleurum falcatum), Radix Rehmannia, Lycium barbarum, Salvia miltiorrhiza, Radix Angelica Sinensis.
(My note: Astragalus has been shown to be very helpful in mitigating the damage to normal cells done by radiation and chemotherapy, and increases the effectiveness of treatment and survival rates. Siberian Ginseng (aka Eleuthero Ginseng) is also helpful; it was used by the Russians when their nuclear power plant melted down and reduced the damage to their bodies from the radiation.)
         
Suggested Use:
1- Immune System Enhancer: take 2 capsules after meal twice daily,
2- Cancer Fighter & Anti Chemotherapy and Radiation side effects: take 2-3 capsules after meal 3 times daily. ImmunPro  120 Caps, $59.95


Cancer: Should Patients Take Dietary Supplements?
LEF Article Updated:
06/30/2004 (From Life Extension Foundation)

-Human Research on Cancer and Dietary Supplements
-Animal Research on Cancer and Dietary Supplements
-Do Antioxidants Bolster or Diminish Survival Odds
-The Molecular Effects of Folic Acid
-Conclusions

There continues to be controversy as to whether cancer patients should take certain vitamin and mineral supplements. Some in mainstream medicine have attacked the use of vitamin supplements as being potentially harmful, despite published scientific evidence indicating that cancer patients who supplement benefit. The criticism about cancer patients taking supplements is not limited to conventional oncologists. There have also been debates among Life Extension advisors as to what supplements are best for cancer patients to take.

Unlike heart disease, cancer is a very complicated disorder. No one has definitively shown what supplements a cancer patient should take nor at what stage in the disease process the supplements should be initiated. It could be that some dietary supplements are of benefit at some phases of cancer treatment (such as enhancing immune function), but detrimental in others (such as protecting cancer cells against the effects of certain chemotherapy drugs).

Most people familiar with published scientific literature are surprised that there is any argument over the value of dietary supplements and cancer treatment. The problem is the complexity of cancer compared to other diseases. For instance, there is a scientific consensus that folic acid is beneficial in cardiovascular disease patients because it lowers homocysteine and protects the arterial system via other mechanisms; no one argues against this. There is also substantial evidence that folic acid dramatically lowers the risk of many forms of cancer; few scientists disagree with this premise either. However, the role of high-dose folic acid in the treatment of cancer is not as clear-cut. Every human and animal cancer study indicates that folic acid improves survival, yet those familiar with the molecular actions of folic acid are concerned that very high amounts could potentially facilitate cancer cell propagation.

In the following section, we review all studies involving the use of dietary supplements by human cancer patients. We also discuss reasons why some scientists believe that cancer patients should approach supplementation with a degree of caution.

The reader should know that no organization has ever methodically analyzed the scientific literature to address the complex issue of using dietary supplements in the treatment of cancer. Although articles have been written about isolated effects of certain nutrients, there has not been an attempt to consolidate this knowledge in a way that provides practical guidance for the cancer patient.

Human Research on Cancer and Dietary Supplements
Although there are hundreds of published studies showing that the ingestion of certain nutrients may reduce cancer risk, relatively few investigate the effects of dietary supplement intake by those already stricken with cancer. This paucity of data has enabled mainstream oncologists to speculate that certain dietary supplements might protect cancer cells from apoptosis (programmed cell death). The assertion made by some oncologists is that there may be a risk when cancer patients take certain dietary supplements.

To get the bottom-line facts on what happens to cancer patients who take dietary supplements, a MEDLINE search was conducted using key words to access all peer-reviewed published studies relating to groups of cancer patients who used various dietary supplements. The criteria for the studies selected was that the dietary supplement had to show an effect on the clinical outcome of the patient--preferably relating to long-term survival--as opposed to therapies that offer a short-term benefit, such as mitigating chemotherapy toxicity. Oncologists generally acknowledge that supplements can mitigate chemotherapy and radiation therapy side effects. The question is whether cancer patients taking supplements are actually surviving longer. Below is a synopsis of the MEDLINE findings:

A study was conducted on non-small cell lung cancer patients over age 60 that had already had the primary tumor(s) surgically removed. The prognosis for this type of cancer is grim. The doctors compared vitamin users to nonusers and measured blood folate as an indicator of folic acid intake. The median survival for the nonusers was only 11 months compared to an astounding 41 months for the vitamin users. Supplement users, in other words, survived almost four times longer than nonusers. In those patients with higher blood levels of folate, there was a 68% improvement in survival. Because the doctors adjusted for other mortality factors, the findings of this study suggest that cancer patients should take vitamin supplements (Jatoi et al. 1998).

A more specific study looked at a group of transitional cell bladder cancer patients. One group was given BCG (tuberculosis vaccine) immune-augmentation therapy plus the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamins. The second BCG-treated group received the RDA plus 40,000 IU of vitamin A, 2000 mg of vitamin C, 400 IU of vitamin E, 100 mg of vitamin B6, and 90 mg of zinc. After 5 years, the tumor recurrence rates were 91% in the group receiving the low-potency RDA vitamins, but only 41% in the mega dose vitamin group. In this study, large doses of vitamins resulted in a 55% reduction in tumor recurrence (Lamm et al. 1994).

Malignant melanoma is virtually impossible to stop once it has spread beyond the primary lesion. A rare form of melanoma occurs in the iris of the eye, and it is considered high risk because it is often found too late. Nine random high-risk patients with T3 melanoma of the eye first underwent standard conventional therapy to eradicate the primary tumor. These patients were then put on a supplement regimen consisting of folic acid, trace minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids. After 80 months of follow-up, none of these nine patients experienced recurrent disease, which was significantly better than a similar group of high-risk melanoma patients who did not receive these supplements. (The control patients consisted of similar adjusted T3 cases selected from the Swedish official registries and T2 patients from Germany.) Because 100% of these high-risk patients were free of disease after almost 7 years, this provides further piece of evidence of the potential value of dietary supplementation in the cancer patient (Tallberg et al. 2000).

Breast cancer patients commonly undergo chemotherapy to reduce the risk of future metastasis. Despite the severe toxicity of chemotherapy, many women experience aggressive metastatic disease and die. Once metastatic disease manifests, the 5-year survival rate is only 15%. A review was conducted of various chemotherapy regimens in order to ascertain the percentages of objective remissions in metastatic breast cancer patients. Of the drugs tested, 5-flouorouracil (5-FU) came in last, but when folic acid was added, objective remissions increased significantly (Kreienberg 1998).

The drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is commonly used in visceral cancers (such as colon, liver, pancreatic), but has not shown a high degree of efficacy. A randomized trial of patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma compared the effects of 5-FU administered alone and in combination with folic acid. Both groups were comparable in respect to age, sex, and numbers of metastases. Compared to the group receiving 5-FU by itself, the patient group receiving the 5-FU plus folic acid experienced a 40% arrest of tumor growth and a 76% overall reduction in tumor progression indicating a 47% difference between the 5-FU and folate group and the 5-FU group. Survival time in the group receiving the 5-FU plus folic acid was 47% greater than the group receiving the 5-FU by itself. The addition of folic acid to this chemotherapy drug regimen resulted in an improvement in the therapeutic profile and a significant prolongation of the survival time (Loffler et al. 1992). 

 5-FU  Folic acid and 5-FU  Difference 
Complete or partial remission  9%  versus 16%  7% 
Arrest of tumor growth  20%  versus 60%  40% 
Progression  71%  versus 24%  47% 
Total  100% of patients in group  100% of patients in group    

Advanced cancer patients exhibit multifaceted defects in their immune capacity that are likely to contribute to an increased susceptibility to infections and disease progression. This immune impairment also constitutes a barrier to effective immunotherapeutic interventions. A chronic inflammatory condition associated with increased oxidative stress has been suggested as one of the responsible mechanisms behind the tumor-induced immune suppression. A study was conducted on 12 advanced colorectal cancer patients to ascertain if supplementation with the antioxidant vitamin E could enhance immune functions. These colorectal cancer (Dukes's C and D) patients received a daily dose of 750 mg of vitamin E beginning 2 weeks prior to intervention with chemotherapy or radiation treatment. The results showed that short-term supplementation with vitamin E led to increased CD4:CD8 ratios and enhanced capacity of their T-cells to produce the T helper 1 cytokines, interleukin 2, and IFN-gamma (Malmberg et al. 2002).
There are other human studies showing a benefit when cancer patients take dietary supplements. We could find no studies on MEDLINE indicating a detrimental effect. The findings from animal studies (reported on next) support the positive human findings that show that dietary supplements appear to enhance survival.

Animal Research on Cancer and Dietary Supplements
To obtain additional information about what happens when an organism afflicted with cancer is administered dietary supplements, we extended our MEDLINE search to in vivo animal studies. As was done with the human study search, keywords were aimed at accessing all peer-reviewed published studies relating to the effects of dietary supplements on animals with different forms of cancer. The criteria for studies selected were that the dietary supplements had to show an effect on survival. Below is a synopsis of the MEDLINE findings:

A debate among medical oncologists relates to the combined use of certain dietary supplements and chemotherapy. A study on rat mammary tumors provided some interesting data but also revealed part of the controversy. In this study, rats were administered one of three chemotherapy drugs (5-FU, doxorubicin, or cyclophosphamide) and then provided with a wide dosage range of folic acid. In the folic acid-deficient group, tumor growth was impeded. However, when higher amounts of folic acid were administered, even greater tumor growth-inhibiting effects were observed. When looking at the data, low folate inhibited tumor growth by an average of 41%, moderate folic acid supplementation inhibited tumor growth by an average of 67%, and very high folic acid administration resulted in an average of 75% in tumor inhibition. Folic acid supplementation doubled the efficacy of one of the drugs (cyclophosphamide) and improved survival in the 5-FU treated animals (Branda et al. 1998).

In a group of mice with ascites sarcoma, a four- to six-fold surplus of folic acid in oral application reduced the toxicity of the chemotherapy drug methotrexate. Moreover, adding these high amounts of folic acid into their drinking water prolonged the survival of these mice (Motycka et al. 1975).
In a group of mice bearing leukemias and solid tumors, a combination of oxidized vitamin C and vitamin B12 inhibited division of the cancer cells. The mice were injected with the vitamins and after 19 days, all of the controls had died, whereas more than 50% of the mice were alive after 60 days in the vitamin-treated group. This study demonstrated that when B12 is combined with vitamin C, the cobalt nucleus of B12 attaches to vitamin C, forming cobalt ascorbate. Additional tests proved that cobalt ascorbate plus vitamin C inhibited tumor cells (Poydock 1991).

The effects of methylcobalamin (vitamin B12) were examined in mice with liver, lung, and Ehrlich ascites tumor cells. The growths of tumors in some groups of the mice were suppressed by the 7-day administration and their survival was longer than that of untreated mice (Shimizu et al. 1987). In a contradictory animal study, the effect of methylcobalamin and vitamin B12 reduced the survival of rats with liver cancer. This is the only study where vitamins actually inhibited survival (Kal'nev et al. 1977).

Cancer spreading (metastasizing) throughout the body often culminates in death. Immune suppression is one mechanism that cancer cells use to establish colonies (metastatic lesions). Scientists investigated the effects of an antioxidant called Astaxanthin in stress-induced, immune suppressed in mice. When exposed to stress, the number of natural killer cells (NK) and other immune cells was reduced and an increase in liver lipid peroxidation was observed. After 4 days of astaxanthin administration, immune dysfunction induced by stress improved. In this same study, cancer cells were injected into mice and the effects of tumor development and metastatic lesions were evaluated in response to induced stress. Daily administration of astaxanthin for 14 days markedly attenuated the promotion of hepatic metastasis induced by stress. The results of this study suggest that the antioxidant, astaxanthin, improves antitumor immune response by inhibiting lipid peroxidation induced by stress (Kurihara et al. 2002).
Despite these studies indicating that supplements confer a significant anticancer benefit, there are certain supplements that cancer patients might consider avoiding, at least during active treatment. These issues are addressed in the next section and in the protocols entitled Cancer Chemotherapy and Cancer Radiation Therapy that appear in this book.

Do Antioxidants (Concurrent with Conventional Therapy) Bolster or Diminish Survival Odds?

Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D., contends that the concept of antioxidants decreasing the efficacy of chemotherapy is conveyed more and more by orthodox oncologists. It is, in fact, speculated that the number of oncologists opposed to patients taking antioxidants while receiving chemotherapy may be as high as 75%.

Although antioxidant therapy is a hotly debated issue, the benefits derived from chemotherapy are equally so. Even within the field of standard oncology, there is debate as to the merit of chemotherapy except for in a small number of cancers (Moss 1995).

Before one can claim that antioxidants should be withheld, credible evidence should be presented showing that chemotherapy has merit. At the Comprehensive Cancer Care 2001 Conference, it was reported that 31% of cancer patients abandon chemotherapy before completion due to intolerable psychological and physical stresses.

Amifostine, a synthetic variant of the amino acid cysteine, is prescribed to reduce radiation toxicity. Amifostine reduces toxicity of treatment without depreciating the anti-cancer effects (Mehta 1998). There is no evidence of defusing the effects of radiotherapy with Amifostine (Perez et al. 1998). Cardiozane (ICRF187), an antioxidant with 500 papers showing its relative safety, is prescribed to counter Adriamycin toxicity (Alderton et al. 1992). Mesna, another synthetic antioxidant, makes possible the use of the anticancer drug Ifosfamide, which (otherwise) damages the urinary system (Brock et al. 1979). Synthetic antioxidants, though somewhat toxic in nature, do not generate controversy because they are physician-prescribed and not patient-managed. It appears only orthomolecular or natural antioxidants are potentially dangerous, according to mainstream oncologists.

Most natural antioxidants, including vitamin C, are under ongoing scrutiny and often attack. The charges that vitamin C impairs the effects of chemotherapy appear to have kindled from an interview conducted with Larry Norton, a chemotherapist with a focus on breast disease at Memorial Sloan Kettering. An account of the interview that ran on the front page of newspapers (in 1997) charged that Sloan Kettering researchers had found that vitamin C blunted the effects of chemotherapy in breast cancer cells.

Dr. Charles Simone, a respected voice in natural medicine, clarified the media hype by saying that researchers had simply determined that tumor cells (injected with vitamin C) take up larger amounts of the nutrient than noncancerous cells (Agus et al. 1999). The story that was ultimately reported had a different slant, that is, because tumor cells are vitamin C responsive, ascorbic acid stymies the effects of chemotherapy by neutralizing free radicals , molecules produced by various chemotherapeutic drugs to kill the cancer. Dr. Simone cautions that jumping from a fact (cancerous cells take up more vitamin C) to a factoid (vitamin C interferes with chemotherapy/radiation therapy) is an unfortunate leap that may have impeded progress for many cancer patients.

Dr. Simone cited more than 350 studies, involving 2000 cancer patients that showed that antioxidants extended the life span of cancer patients and improved quality of life. One such study involved 50 early stage breast cancer patients, some of whom were relegated to radiation therapy and others to a combination of radiation and chemotherapy. All participants (in union with conventional therapies) took large doses of nutrients. More than 90% of both groups noted improvement in their physical symptoms, cognitive ability, sexual function, general well-being, and life satisfaction. Not one subject in either group reported a worsening of symptoms (Simone et al. 2000).

Cancer: Should Patients Take Dietary Supplements?

Dr. Simone explains the pathways through which antioxidants work to restrain cancer:
Antioxidants inhibit protein kinase C, restraining tumor cell division and proliferation.
Antioxidants inhibit oncogene expression, genes that give rise to tumors.
Antioxidants promote differentiation by altering growth factors. Undifferentiated cells depart (in appearance) from the highly recognizable (differentiated) cells of the tissue of origin. For example, healthy cells have a typical appearance microscopically: A healthy liver cell cannot be mistaken for a colon cell; or a colon cell cannot be mistaken for a kidney cell. The greater the departure from the unique character of the cell (a lack of differentiation) the greater the level of malignancy.
Antioxidants block destruction imposed by free radicals, protecting vital tissue from damage.

Dr. Hoffer adds that he has treated more than 1100 cancer patients with high doses of vitamin C (most of whom were concurrently receiving chemotherapy) (Hoffer et al. 1993a; Hoffer et al. 1993b; Hoffer 1994; Hoffer 1996). Upon examining health histories, Hoffer found that the mean difference in prolongation of life was heavily in favor of the use of vitamins. In the first Hoffer/Pauling series published, patients on the Hoffer program lived 10-20 times longer than patients not receiving vitamin C.

Various vital functions dependent on healthy antioxidant systems are challenged during cancer. Collapse of internal defenses (either partial or total) occurs through nutrient depletion as observed among cachexic patients, that is, those individuals evidencing a profound state of general ill health and malnutrition, marked by weakness and emaciation. (About 40% of cancer patients die due to malnutrition.) Also, naturally occurring antioxidants and enzymes are often severely exhausted among cancer patients undergoing aggressive therapies, leaving the patient defenseless in regard to free-radical attack. Adjunctive antioxidant therapy is not adding something foreign to the body but rather replacing natural substances withdrawn as a result of treatment.

A valuable contribution to the quandary of whether to use antioxidants with chemotherapy or radiation is available to physicians and patients at http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/5/2/152.html.

Drs. Davis Lamson and Matthew Brignall have abridged a lengthy dissertation into accessible reference guides, showing antioxidant interactions (both positive and negative) when coupled with traditional therapies, for example, popular antioxidants (vitamins A, C, E, beta-carotene, and melatonin) interlaced positively with radiotherapy, enhancing the therapeutic intent (Lamson et al. 2000).

Exceptions to the reference guides routinely surface, but Lamson et al. (1999) declare that (to date) only three agents, classified as antioxidants, have been shown to decrease the effectiveness of radiation or chemotherapy in vivo :

N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) reduced the therapeutic effect of anthracycline-type chemotherapy agents (doxorubicin and bleomycin), which kill cells by generating oxygen radicals. Alkylating agents (such as cisplatin) and hormonal therapies were not affected.
Beta-carotene decreased the effectiveness of antimetabolites (5-FU and methotrexate). Conversely, beta-carotene increased the efficacy of radiotherapy, as well as alkylating, anthracycline, and platinum chemotherapy agents.

Tangeretin (a flavonoid found in citrus fruit) reduced the chemotherapeutic effect of platinum compounds such as cisplatin and carboplatin. Tangeretin interfered with tamoxifen, a nonsteroidal antiestrogen used to treat estrogen-dependent cancers (Bracke et al. 1999).

Dietary curcumin inhibited chemotherapy-induced apoptosis through inhibition of reactive oxygen species. A 70% reduction in chemotherapy-induced apoptosis in MCF-7, MDA-MB-231, and BT-474 human breast cancer cells was noted. Supplemental curcumin as well as curcumin-containing foods were proposed as being possible antagonists to conventional treatment. However, additional studies are needed to determine whether breast cancer patients, undergoing chemotherapy, should avoid curcumin supplementation (Somasundaram et al. 2002).

Dan Labriola, M.D., and Robert Livingston, M.D., suggest a plan for adjunctive antioxidant therapy aimed at avoiding possible undesirable interactions with conventional treatments. They acknowledge that a number of chemotherapeutic agents are dependent upon reactive oxygen species for performance. Drs. Labriola and Livingston refer to the period when conventional treatments do their work as the protected zone. They contend that the protected zone can last for varying amounts of time, depending on the drug, the procedure and dosage, other drugs or treatments in the regime, and the patient's overall health.

Pinpointing the protected zone and protecting this interval (a process that requires the expertise and clinical judgment of a physician and an oncology pharmacist) allows time for the cytotoxic agent to enact its kill. The clinical objective is to avoid high antioxidant levels while the drugs are still active and vulnerable to interference (Labriola et al. 1999). Labriola, although criticized by some for astringency, advises looking at the long-term prognosis, not the short-term "feel good" response, obtained from antioxidants while undergoing aggressive therapies.

Jeff Bland, Ph.D., scientist and educator, reported at the Comprehensive Cancer Care 2001 Conference that leaders in the field endorse pulse therapy as the appropriate means of administering nutritional support concurrent with toxic treatment. Reentering with supplementation 2-3 days after the large chemotherapeutic bolus allows time for a massive cancer kill followed by a period of rebuilding (Bland 1999; 2001). If conventional treatment is the patient's election, this dosing pattern appears to allow the body the full effects of conventional treatment, plus the benefit of an antioxidant program a few days later. Juices, rich in antioxidants, may (according to Dr. Bland) also merit caution during the few days of the protected zone.

Dr. Keith Block, director of the Block Medical Center and the Institute for Integrated Cancer Care, although in favor of antioxidant therapy, admits the ultimate answer is not available. The downside to the equation is that individuals with cancer are not able to wait for proof. The general theme of Comprehensive Cancer Care 2001 (presenting the best of worldwide research) was that it appears unreasonable and heartless to totally withhold materials that (to date) show survival enhancement. Dr. Block concluded: "I would not (personally) take chemotherapy if antioxidants were not also on board" (Block 2001). Dr. Block believes that factoring in circadian rhythms regarding chemotherapeutic administration influences toxicity and anticancer activity and best serves the patient's welfare. Dr. Block has a highly esteemed practice in Evanston, Illinois, (847) 492-3040.

An opposing view (regarding antioxidant therapy) comes from Dr. Rudolph Salganik, a Russian scientist currently at the University of North Carolina. Dr. Salganik states that free radicals, generated through chemicals and radiation, should be allowed to work unencumbered, that is, without interference from antioxidants. According to Dr. Salganik, apoptosis or regulated cell death eliminates unwanted and damaged cells, including those precancerous and cancerous. He continued, "Since reactive oxygen species (ROS) act as essential apoptotic mediators, we [our team] reasoned that increasing ROS levels might enhance apoptosis and thereby slow tumor growth." A brain tumor was used as the model to test the impact of an antioxidant-depleted diet, that is, a diet capable of increasing ROS levels compared to an antioxidant-enriched diet on tumor growth.

The antioxidant-depleted diet dramatically increased apoptosis in mouse tumor cells but did not affect normal tissue. Salganik says that the presence of increased oxidant stress within tumors indicates that the likely mechanism of apoptosis is via ROS and DNA oxidative impairment. As reactive oxygen species promoted apoptosis, tumor growth was inhibited; in contrast, the antioxidant-rich diet had no impact on the growth of the tumor. The Salganik team concluded that when the multitudes of oxidants are not suppressed by antioxidants, they mediate apoptosis, or cell death, the exact intent of cytotoxic therapies (Salganik et al. 2000).

Dr. Salganik later reported that intake of exogenous antioxidants (vitamins E, C, and beta-carotene) could protect against cancer and other degenerative processes in individuals with innate or acquired high levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Screening populations (for high or low levels of ROS) could provide a scientifically grounded application for antioxidant supplementation, a program that could vastly contribute to the nation's overall health (Salganik 2001).

Positive Results of High Dose Antioxidant Therapy During Chemotherapy and Radiation
Studies have demonstrated that antioxidant vitamins can enhance the efficacy of certain chemotherapeutic agents on tumor cells in culture (Prasad et al. 1994; Prasad 2003). Antioxidant vitamins could be an important adjuvant to standard treatment of human cancers (Prasad et al. 1999).

An in vitro study was undertaken to ascertain if antioxidant vitamins could enhance the cytotoxic and apoptotic effects of paclitaxel and carboplatin on non-small cell lung cancer ( Pathak et al. 2002).

The human non-small cell lung cancer cell line H-520 was treated with a mixture of the antioxidant vitamins C, E, and beta-carotene and paclitaxel and carboplatin, both individually and in combination of various doses in different sequences. The mixture of antioxidant vitamins by itself led to 15% apoptosis. Simultaneous treatment of paclitaxel and carboplatin produced 40% apoptosis, while paclitaxel treatment 24 hours prior to carboplatin treatment caused 54% apoptosis. However, the most significant improvements in the degree of apoptosis were observed when cells were pretreated with an antioxidant vitamin mixture immediately before treatment with paclitaxel and carboplatin (70% apoptosis) or pretreated with the antioxidant vitamin mixture 24 hours prior to treatment with paclitaxel, which was then followed 24 hours later by treatment with carboplatin (89% apoptosis).

The apoptotic effects of paclitaxel and carboplatin are enhanced by antioxidant vitamin pretreatment. Further, the most promising sequence of agents that emerged in this study was the pretreatment with the antioxidant vitamin mixture 24 hours prior to treatment with paclitaxel, which was then followed 24 hours later by treatment with carboplatin.

Another clinical trial was conducted to examine the outcome of treatment with paclitaxel and carboplatin alone and in combination with an antioxidant vitamin mixture of 60 mg a day of beta-carotene, 1025 mg a day of alpha- tocopherol, and 6100 mg a day of ascorbic acid on 65 cancer patients with squamous cell carcinomas (n = 37), adenocarcinomas (n = 16), large cell carcinomas (n = 6), and poorly differentiated carcinoma (n = 6). The outcome was very encouraging with overall survival at 33% after 1 year with the treatment of paclitaxel and carboplatin alone, and 54% when patients were treated with paclitaxel and carboplatin combined with the antioxidant vitamin mixture. Although the study was limited due to the small number of patients, the research confirms a need for further clinical trials to examine the role of vitamins in the treatment and management of cancer (Unpublished 2002).

For a comprehensive report on the use of antioxidants during cancer therapy, refer to the Cancer Chemotherapy and Cancer Radiation Therapy protocols.

The Molecular Effects of Folic Acid
Few people have ever heard the word methylation, yet this word holds the promise of unlocking the doors to understanding, preventing, and curing cancer. Although methylation is a biochemical reaction that occurs millions of times a day in every cell in the body, it has not been very well studied. Its connection to cancer is now under intense scrutiny because methylation acts as a switch to activate or deactivate cancer genes (Momparl i er et al. 2001; Sasaki et al. 2001).

Cancer is fundamentally cellular growth gone wild. It can involve any organ of the body, but the one factor cancers have in common is that they are made of wildly proliferating cells. Normal cells replicate themselves, then stop. Cancer cells race through all normal checkpoints of cellular growth without stopping, and they cease to communicate with other cells. Striking new research shows that the same pathological mechanism causes all of this strange behavior: methylation dysfunction.

Methylation research has opened up new avenues for the detection, prevention, and the eventual cure of cancer (Cairns et al. 2001; Goessl et al. 2001; Weihrauch et al. 2001). It has been repeatedly shown that methylation-deficient diets and/or exposure to chemicals deplete methylation and cause cancer (Issa et al. 1996; Chen et al. 2001; Kim et al. 2001). Both events can be prevented and, to some extent, reversed by methylation-enhancing supplements, which include folic acid, SAMe, vitamin B12, and trimethylglycine (TMG) (Wilcken et al. 1985; Loehrer et al. 1996; Kuan et al. 2002). How can a person know if his/her level of methylation is below the healthy level? Homocysteine can be used as a rough guide to methylation status (until methylation testing becomes widespread). If homocysteine levels are elevated, methylation is likely depressed (Yi et al. 2000).

DNA methylation is influenced by diet and methylation supplementation may reverse the progression of cancer in the early stages. It is not known, however, at what point cancer becomes irreversible. At this point, supplementation to enhance methylation would not be desirable inasmuch as methylation is also required for the synthesis of new cells, including cancer cells. For now, it is important to know that diet and exposure to chemicals can alter DNA methylation patterns and activate or deactivate genes involved in cancer (Fenech 2001). These alterations can be prevented, and potentially reversed, by dietary factors that enhance methylation, such as folic acid.

There are concerns that high doses of folic acid, vitamin B12, and S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) may not be beneficial to the cancer patient until the disease is brought under control. A consensus does not exist among experts, and we must thus rely on the consistency of the published scientific data indicating that moderate supplementation with methylation-enhancing agents would appear to prolong survival. A moderate approach would involve 800 mcg of folic acid, no more than 1000 m c g of vitamin B12, with SAMe intake limited to around 800 mg daily. Some argue that only 200 mcg a day of folic acid and B12 be taken and SAMe be avoided by those with active cancer. It should be reassuring, however, that all human (and animal) studies published to date show that folic acid improves survival.

The most recent human study of folic acid and human cancer was conducted on 42 patients afflicted with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Doctors evaluated the cancer patient's blood levels of folic acid and homocysteine in relation to two control groups without cancer. Compared to the control groups, the folate level in the cancer patients was 38% lower and the homocysteine level was 22% higher. The differences in serum levels of folate and homocysteine might arise from tumor development and consequent metabolic alterations, or might precede and promote tumor progression. If low folate is a risk factor for head and neck cancer, it might suggest a role for folate as a novel preventive agent both in patients with precancerous lesions and in patients with treated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma at risk for regional recurrence and second primary tumors (Almandori et al. 2002). 

Cancer: Should Patients Take Dietary Supplements?
Proponents of dietary supplementation by cancer patients argue that high-dose multiple antioxidant supplements before and during conventional or experimental therapy may improve treatment efficacy by increasing tumor response and decreasing normal tissue toxicity (Prasad et al. 1999b). The proponents point out that even when a conventional therapy has proven cure rates, there exists the possibility of developing second cancers as a result of treatment. In addition, conventional therapy also produces toxicity during treatment that can be severe enough to cause discontinuation of certain therapeutic agents. Therefore, if dietary supplements can reduce the toxicity of normal cells, and/or increase the response of tumor cells to conventional therapy, there would be a significant improvement over the current management of cancer.

Critics argue that antioxidant supplements should not be used while treating cancer patients with conventional therapy because they would protect cancer cells against free radicals that are produced by most anticancer agents (Labriola et al. 1999).

One way of approaching this dilemma is to observe the distinct differences of low-dose compared to high-dose antioxidants on cancer cells (Prasad et al. 1998; 1999b). Antioxidants such as vitamin A (and its drug analogs), vitamin E (tocopherol succinate), vitamin C, and certain carotenoids, when used in high doses individually, have been shown to induce cell differentiation, growth inhibition, and apoptosis in rodent and human cancer cells in vitro and in vivo (Kline et al. 1995; Cole et al. 1997; Prasad et al. 1998; 1999b).

It appears that low-dose antioxidants might protect cancer cells against oxidative stress without inducing the desirable inhibitory effect (Park 1988; Cohen et al. 1995; Prasad et al. 1996). For example, vitamin C at a dose of 50 mcg/mL stimulates the growth of human parotid carcinoma cells and human leukemia cells in culture (Park 1988). Such low doses have no significant effect on the growth of other cancer cells (Prasad et al. 1996).

A Pilot Study to Assess Effects of Antioxidants in Combination with Carboplatin and Taxol on Tumor Response in Humans with Non-small Lung Carcinoma 
                                        Chemotherapy alone (17 patients)  Chemotherapy + micronutrients (14 patients) 
Median follow-up             24 weeks                                       20 weeks 
Median number of cycles  4 (6 cycles in 1 part)                   3 (6 cycles in 6 parts) 
Complete response             0                                                    1 
Partial response                  2                                                    7 
Stable disease                     1                                                    3 
Progressive disease           8                                                    0 
Death                                    6*                                                 3** 
*Five patients died of disease; one patient died of chemotherapy-induced toxicity. 
**One patient died of respiratory failure after pneumonectomy. The second patient died of a severe chest infection, which could not be treated with antibiotics in time because he resided in a remote area. The third patient was lost to follow-up after the second cycle of chemotherapy, and death reportedly occurred 4 months later at home (Pathak et al., 2002). 

One study showed that a mixture of four antioxidants (13- cis -retinoic acid, sodium ascorbate, tocopherol succinate, and certain carotenoids) markedly inhibited the growth of human melanoma cells in culture (Prasad et al. 1994). Individually, these antioxidants had no effect on the growth of these tumor cells. Doubling the dose of one of the antioxidants (vitamin C) further reduced the growth of tumor cells in vitro (Prasad et al. 1994).

A mixture of four antioxidants was also more effective than the single antioxidant in reducing the growth of human parotid carcinoma cells in culture (Prasad et al. 1996). This observation is important because it experimentally indicates that a mixture of antioxidants could be more effective than a single antioxidant in reducing tumor growth. This study revealed that the use of multiple antioxidants might avoid the toxicity produced during treatment of certain human cancers with a single antioxidant at very high doses. A preliminary clinical trial in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma demonstrated that the tumor response of patients receiving carboplatin and Taxol together with high doses of vitamin C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene was better than in patients receiving carboplatin and Taxol alone (Table 1).

High-dose antioxidants have been shown to inhibit the growth of different rodent and human cancer cells in vivo and in vitro (Cole et al. 1997; Prasad et al. 1998; 1999a; 1999b). For example, tocopherol succinate (a form of dry vitamin E powder) induces apoptosis in human prostate cancer cells but not in normal prostate cells in vitro (Isreal et al. 2000). In addition, tocopherol succinate has been shown to decrease accumulation of mitotic (dividing) cells in three human cancer cell lines but not in normal human fibroblasts (Jha et al. 1999). Tocopherol succinate also induces chromosomal damage in human cervical cancer cells and in human ovarian cancer cells but not in normal human fibroblasts (Kumar et al. 2002). High doses of individual antioxidants such as vitamin A and its analogs, vitamin C, beta-carotene, and vitamin E have been used in rodents and humans without any effects on proliferating cell systems (Cameron et al. 1979; Seifter et al. 1984; Dreno et al. 1993; Garewal 1995; Lippman et al. 1995; Meyskens 1995; Schwartz 1995; Chinery et al. 1997; Malafa et al. 1999; Prasad et al. 1994; Prasad et al. 1999a), while exhibiting varying levels of antitumor activity.

Critics of antioxidant supplements point to a study demonstrating that tumor cells in vivo are more sensitive to antioxidant deficiency (vitamin A and E) than normal cells with respect to growth inhibition (Salganik et al. 1999). If tumor cells exhibit a greater sensitivity to a deficiency of antioxidant vitamins than normal cells, then it would make sense to try to temporarily induce an antioxidant deficiency in the body. The problem in trying to achieve a vitamin E or vitamin A deficiency is that this could cause damage to healthy tissues--some of which could be irreversible. It is also difficult to induce the kind of severe vitamin E deficiency in humans needed to adequately starve cancer cells of this antioxidant (additionally, a vitamin E deficiency has been correlated with an increased incidence of other cancers) (Woodson et al. 2002; Lagiou et al. 2001; Hammerer et al. 2000; Mannisto et al. 1999; Bohlke et al. 1999; Zhu et al. 1996).

It is interesting to note that antioxidant treatment for a short period (a few hours) may not inhibit the growth of cancer cells, whereas the treatment of cancer cells for a longer period of time (24 hours or more) with the same dose of antioxidants may cause growth inhibition. There is also variation on the growth inhibitory effects of antioxidants based on the time they are given in relationship to other cancer therapies. Furthermore, depending on the types of tumor cell, antioxidants may or may not show benefit. Vitamin A, for instance, induces cell differentiation in some tumor cells of epithelial origin (Sporn et al. 1983; Carter et al. 1996), whereas beta-carotene and tocopherol succinate do not. Tocopherol succinate and beta-carotene induce differentiation in murine melanoma cells (Prasad et al. 1982; Hazuka et al. 1990), whereas vitamins C and A do not. Vitamin C inhibits the growth of tumor cells but does not cause differentiation (Cameron et al. 1979; Prasad et al. 1979). These studies show that antioxidants do not produce similar effects on different types of cancer cells.

Depending on the type of therapy used, antioxidants may affect cancer cells in many different ways. For example, studies reveal that vitamin C, tocopherol succinate and acetate, vitamin A (and its analogs), and certain carotenoids enhanced the growth inhibitory effect of most types of radiation and chemotherapy on some cancer cells in culture (Prasad et al. 1999b). The magnitude of this enhancement depended on the dose and form of the nutrient, the dose and type of chemotherapy agent, and the type of tumor cell. Tocopherol succinate, for instance, induced differentiation of melanoma cells in culture.

Retinoid drugs have been successfully used in human cancer studies. Several mechanisms of action of antioxidants on cancer cells in vitro have been proposed. For example, high-dose antioxidants inhibit expression of the RAS oncogene (Amatruda et al. 1985; Prasad et al. 1990; Schwartz 1995) and the activity of protein kinase C (Mahoney et al. 1988; Gopalakrishna et al. 1995). Changes such as this are considered growth inhibitory signals for cancer cells.

These variable factors help explain why one group of scientists can say antioxidants have no effect (when looking only at short-term studies), and another group of scientists looking at the same antioxidants can claim a benefit (when looking at longer-term studies, at different dosing schedules relative to the use of other therapies, or at tumors of different origins).

Studies looking at different types of tumors show encouraging results. Tocopherol succinate, for instance, enhanced the effect of radiation treatment on neuroblastoma cells in culture, and tocopherol acetate enhanced the effect of the chemotherapy drug vincristine on neuroblastoma cells in culture. Vitamin C was shown to enhance the effect of the chemotherapy drug 5-flouorouracil (5-FU) on neuroblastoma cells in culture.

There are a few in vivo (whole body) studies that support the concept that antioxidants selectively enhance the effect of conventional therapy on tumor cells by increasing tumor response. Retinyl palmitate (vitamin A) or synthetic beta-carotene at doses 10 times higher than the recommended daily allowance (RDA), in combination with radiation or the drug cyclophosphamide, increased the cure rate from 0 to more than 90% in mice with transplanted breast cancer (Seifter et al. 1984). A study using a thiol-containing antioxidant and a water-soluble vitamin E analog demonstrated the enhanced antitumor effects of the drugs 5-FU and doxorubicin in vitro against several cancer cell lines, as well as the effect of 5-FU in vivo against two colorectal cancer cell lines (Chinery et al. 1997). The combination of the vitamin A analog drug Accutane and the immune modulating drug alpha-interferon enhanced the levels of radiation-induced growth inhibition in human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in vitro (DeLaney et al. 1996).

Opponents of cancer patients taking dietary supplements point out that the effect of individual antioxidant vitamins in combination with radiation or chemotherapy agents have not been systematically tested in human tumors in vivo . Although this is true, there are studies indicating that certain antioxidants in combination with radiation and chemotherapy may be beneficial. In one study, 18 nonrandomized patients with small cell lung cancer received multiple antioxidant treatment with chemotherapy and/or radiation. This type of lung cancer has a very poor prognosis. The median survival time was markedly enhanced, and patients tolerated chemotherapy and radiation therapy well (Jaakkola et al. 1992).

Similar observations were made in private practice settings (Lamson et al. 1999). A randomized trial with non-small cell lung carcinoma patients showed that tumor response in groups receiving chemotherapy plus multiple antioxidants was better than in groups receiving chemotherapy alone. Another study showed that beta-carotene supplementation reduced radiation- and chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis without interfering with their efficacy on tumor cells (Mills 1988). A combination of retinoic acid and interferon enhanced the effect of radiation therapy on locally advanced cervical cancer (Lippman et al. 1993). In a mouse study, a mixture of antioxidants reduced bone marrow suppression caused by radiation and immune therapies without interfering with the treatment efficacy in reducing tumor growth (Blumenthal et al. 2000).

Critics of cancer patients taking antioxidants remain troubled that many types of conventional therapies induce tumor cell death, in part, by generating excessive amounts of free radicals. Their concern is that high-dose antioxidant supplementation during standard cancer therapy could be harmful since the antioxidants might protect both normal and cancer cells against the cell-killing effects of tumor therapeutic agents (Labriola et al. 1999). This theory is contradicted by studies showing that vitamin C, tocopherol succinate, and Accutane (vitamin A analog) enhanced the growth inhibitory effect of radiation and certain chemotherapy agents on tumor cells in culture and in vivo (Prasad et al. 1998; 1999b). This demonstrated that antioxidants do not protect cancer cells against the growth-inhibitory effect of conventional therapy and may in fact enhance the growth inhibitory effects on tumor cells.

Conclusions
Our review of the published scientific literature and conference reports would appear to indicate that cancer patients might derive enormous benefits by taking dietary supplements. We are troubled, however, by the knowledge that cancer is an extremely complex disease that defies simple solutions. We know that every person's cancer is different from another's and that even cancer cells within a given tumor show marked molecular differences (heterogeneity).

Cancer is unlike any other disease inasmuch as cancer cells often benefit from many of the same nutrients needed by healthy cells. Although cellular studies show that certain nutrients interfere with cancer cell propagation, these data are not yet conclusive.

We have gone to enormous lengths to present the facts so that the cancer patient can make an informed decision about using supplements. What we did not include in this chapter were comments from other cancer experts who have used high-potency supplements for decades in their practices. If we were to include comments from everyone who wanted to contribute to this article, it would have been heavily biased in favor of cancer patients using dietary supplements.

On the flip-side, we were also concerned about the power of negative bias, especially as it relates to folic acid. Some researchers do not believe a cancer patient should take folic acid, yet every published study shows cancer patients are surviving much longer when consuming folic acid supplements and have higher levels of folic acid in their blood. The same appears to be true for antioxidants.

Many experts equivocate when it comes to antioxidant supplements. They acknowledge that cell culture, animal, and human studies indicate that antioxidants would both help to inhibit cancer cell propagation and protect the body against therapeutic toxicities, malnutrition, immune dysfunction, and so forth. They are concerned, however, that antioxidants protect so well that they may interfere with apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells.

Contradicting this negative theory are the many studies showing that the tocotrienols (a potent form of vitamin E) induce significant inhibitory effects against active cancer cell lines. The tocotrienols may be nature's most powerful natural antioxidant, yet when certain types of cancer cells are exposed to them, a direct antiproliferative effect occurs.

To give you an idea of the debate that goes back and forth, one only has to look at studies on alpha tocopherol succinate (dry-powder vitamin E). Some argue against taking antioxidants during radiation therapy because radiation kills cancer cells by generating massive free radicals. Yet the most recent study on this subject showed that tocopherol succinate enhanced radiation damage to ovarian and cervical cancer cells but protected healthy cells! This study showed that both cancer and normal cells absorbed a similar amount of tocopherol succinate, but only the cancer cells were sensitized to the radiation by this form of vitamin E. The doctors who conducted this study concluded that: "The use of alpha tocopherol succinate during radiation therapy may improve the efficacy of radiation therapy by enhancing tumor response and decreasing some of the toxicities on normal cells" (Kumar et al. 2002).

A serious side effect from cancer radiation therapy is fibrosis to healthy tissues. Fibrosis is an inflammatory condition that causes progressive scarring (necrosis) to healthy tissue that can lead to debility or death. Antioxidants have not only been shown to prevent fibrosis, but also reverse it. Based on the published research, it would appear that patients undergoing radiation procedures might derive therapeutic and protective benefits if they consumed the proper antioxidants before, during, and after therapy. The downside, critics argue, is that long-term survival studies of radiation patients supplementing with high doses of antioxidants are lacking (Letur-Konirsch et al. 2002).

The individual stricken with cancer today needs a definitive answer about what dietary supplements are appropriate, when and how much should be taken, or whether they should be taken at all. The Life Extension Foundation is determined to make definitive recommendations but cannot make a generalized conclusive statement that accurately pertains to the use of every dietary supplement in every type of cancer during every conventional therapy. In other words, there is inadequate substantiation to address how every single supplement might affect each individual cancer patient. The evidence presented, however, speaks for itself.

The most comprehensive report dealing with this subject was published in the October 2001 issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition . Below is an excerpt from this paper entitled "Scientific Rationale for Using High-Dose Multiple Micronutrients as an Adjunct to Standard and Experimental Cancer Therapies" (Prasad et al. 2001):

We have hypothesized that high-dose multiple micronutrients, including antioxidants, as an adjunct to standard (radiation therapy and chemotherapy) or experimental therapy (hyperthermia and immunotherapy), may improve the efficacy of cancer therapy by increasing tumor response and decreasing toxicity. Several in vitro studies and some in vivo investigations support this hypothesis. A second hypothesis is that antioxidants may interfere with the efficacy of radiation therapy and chemotherapy. This hypothesis is based on the concept that antioxidants will destroy free radicals that are generated during therapy, thereby protecting cancer cells against death. None of the published data on the effect of antioxidants in combination with radiation or chemotherapeutic agents on tumor cells supports the second hypothesis. Scientific rationale in support of a micronutrient protocol to be used as an adjunct to standard or experimental cancer therapy is presented.

In the Cancer Adjuvant Therapy protocol of this book, a plethora of research strongly suggests that the proper dietary supplements are of considerable value. This protocol also provides specific recommendations of dietary supplements that a cancer patient may consider.

The Cancer Chemotherapy and Cancer Radiation Therapy protocols present specific information relating to the positive and potentially negative effects of dietary supplements being used during these therapies.

The various cancer protocols in this book provide the cancer patient with a wide range of therapeutic and lifestyle choices that have been shown to provide significant benefit. Life Extension urges cancer patients to embark on a multimodality treatment program that is practical from an individual standpoint.

Staying Informed
The information published in this protocol is only as current as the day the manuscript was sent to the printer. This protocol raises many issues that are subject to change as new data emerge. Furthermore, cancer is still a disease with unacceptably high mortality rates, and none of our suggested regimens can guarantee a cure.

The Life Extension Foundation is constantly uncovering information to provide to cancer patients. A special website has been established for the purpose of updating patients on new findings that directly pertain to the published cancer protocols. Whenever Life Extension discovers information that may benefit cancer patients it will be posted on the website www.lefcancer.org.

Before utilizing the cancer protocols in this book, we suggest that you check www.lefcancer.org to see if any substantive changes have been made to the recommendations described in this protocol. Based on the sheer number of newly published findings, there could be significant alterations to the information you have just read.

Alternatively, call 1-800-226-2370 and ask a Health Advisor if your topic of interest has been updated on the website - www.lefcancer.org


Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams (Note: this applies to other forms of cancer, as well)
http://www.newstarget.com/020841.html

The breast cancer industry is now run by corporations that profit from women with disease. With nearly all breast cancer nonprofits being subjugated by drug companies, the FDA censoring alternative cancer solutions, and the mainstream media wildly exaggerating the benefits of near-useless cancer drugs like Herceptin, there's hardly a message heard about breast cancer today that doesn't have a profit motive behind it.
The emphasis on breast cancer "screening," and the circus of holding breast cancer awareness months is, of course, all about recruiting more women into a system of treatment that generates profits for drug companies. Using fear-based tactics of recruitment (like telling women, "You'll die in six months if you don't undergo chemotherapy..."), the breast cancer industry manages to corral women of all races and ages into treatments that actually harm far more women than they help.

Find that hard to believe? Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark studied 500,000 women to determine the results of breast cancer screening programs. They found that for every one woman helped by breast cancer screening, ten were harmed through false diagnosis or unnecessary treatments that devastated their health.

"What seems like good and obvious advice in everyday life is not always scientifically or medically sound," said Peter Gotzsche, MD, director of the center. "So we might say there is a benefit of one but a harm of 10 from screening for breast cancer."

In other words, breast cancer screening is surprisingly harmful to women. That's partly because the procedure itself irradiates the breast tissue and actually causes cancer, but also because practically any screening result producing a questionable blur on the final image may result in a woman being manipulated through fear into undergoing aggressive, toxic cancer treatments even when they never had breast cancer in the first place. (False positives are extremely common in breast cancer screening, and in some cases, the machinery is incorrectly calibrated and doesn't even meet radiology standards.)

Preventing prevention

And yet breast cancer screening is the only form of "prevention" offered by the cancer industry. Only it isn't prevention, it's detection. Breast cancer screening does nothing to educate women how to really prevent breast cancer, nor does it teach women how to change their diets and lifestyles so that breast cancer never develops in the first place. In fact, the strategy of the cancer industry today can be best described as waiting for women to get cancer, then treating it with toxic drugs.

While tens of millions of women are developing undetectable, early-stage breast cancer right now, the cancer industry does nothing. They will not tell these women how to halt the growth of cancer tumors; they will only wait until the cancer becomes large enough to see on a screening test, and then they will scare the women to death with harmful, authoritative medical demands and toss them into chemotherapy -- a treatment that causes permanent, irreversible harm to the brain, heart, liver, kidneys and other organs.

Yet even the World Health Organization admits that 70 percent of all cancers can be prevented through simple changes in food and lifestyle. That number is probably conservative, though. My own opinion is that 90 percent of all cancers can be prevented through simple food and lifestyle changes. Yet no one in the cancer industry is interested in teaching any of these strategies to people. In the cancer industry, there is no incentive to teach women how to avoid breast cancer, because to do so would eliminate a future customer!

That's why I started the Education Not Medication program. It is a humble effort to teach women how to prevent their own breast cancer through scientifically-supported natural health strategies that are easy to understand and simple to follow. They include things like eating more broccoli and garlic, getting more natural sunlight on your skin (to generate the anti-cancer nutrient Vitamin D) and avoiding cancer-causing chemicals in manufactured foods (such as sodium nitrite, found in bacon, sausage and virtually all packaged meats). A more detailed list is offered below.

The cancer industry depends on more cancer

The cancer industry remains silent about these cancer prevention solutions. Ever wonder why? It's because the livelihood of the industry depends on more cancer! If cancer rates plummeted by 70 percent or more, the industry would be devastated. The incomes, egos and power positions of cancer industry operators depends entirely on the continued spread of cancer among the population.

Ever notice that cancer centers are not called, "Anti-Cancer Centers?" You see them in virtually every city and state across the country: The Washington Cancer Center, or the San Francisco Cancer Center. Here in Arizona, we have a massive, new building being constructed, and it's named the Arizona Cancer Center. These are all monuments to cancer, and they are for-profit businesses constructed for the purpose of making money from a woman's disease. They turn cancer into profit, and they depend on continued cancer to stay in business. That's why there's no real effort underway to teach women how to prevent breast cancer. There's no program in place to teach women about the anti-cancer effects of sunlight and vitamin D (in fact, cancer industry groups like the American Cancer Society run public service ads warning people about sunlight!), there's no honest effort to teach women about the natural anti-cancer medicine founds in certain foods, and no one is telling women the truth about the cancer-causing chemicals in perfumes, laundry detergent, cosmetics and personal care products. In other words, when it comes to preventing cancer, the cancer industry is silent. Why should they say anything, anyway? If they teach women how to prevent breast cancer, they lose customers. Besides, the scheme they're running right now is working brilliantly. They maximize revenues and profits by preventing prevention and waiting for women to get cancer, then treating them with high-profit pharmaceuticals, radiation and surgical procedures. They have the easiest business model in the world: All they have to do is keep their mouths shut about what causes cancer, and wait for new customers to fill the cancer centers. And to help them out, corporations, media organizations and volunteers (many are women!) actually help them raise more money! It makes about as much sense as holding a fundraiser for Bill Gates.

It's time to teach genuine cancer prevention to people

The cancer industry has been getting away with this scam for years, but I say enough is enough. It's time to declare, "The Emperor has no clothes!" and that the best way to help protect the lives of women is to teach them how to avoid breast cancer rather than waiting for them to get it. And doing so is surprisingly simple. All you have to do is raise awareness about the things that cause breast cancer vs. the things that prevent breast cancer. This can be done through public service announcements, information handouts, or even internet campaigns like this one.

I also suggest that all these cancer treatment centers donate 100 percent of their profits to cancer prevention campaigns. It's wrong to profit from a woman's cancer, is it not? If these businesses really cared about stopping cancer, they'd refuse to profit from the disease and, instead, use the money to help stop cancer in future generations of women (and men, for that matter).

What an idea, huh? That these ultra-wealthy non-profits and billion-dollar corporations might spend some money on teaching women how to prevent cancer...

If it ever really happens, of course, it will only be as a cover-your-ass reaction to public awareness about the corporatization of the breast cancer industry. As word spreads, these non-profits will have to do something to save their reputation, so they'll start running tiny "prevention" campaigns to save face. But underneath the facade, make no mistake: cancer is big, big business, and the cancer industry is driven by profiting from a woman's body, not protecting it from cancer.

The real answers to breast cancer prevention

Here, for the benefit of women everywhere, is a partial list of the things that cause cancer and things that don't. You're not going to find full descriptions and citations here, as that would require an entire book all by itself, but this is a very useful reference list that tells the truth about what causes or prevents cancer in the human body.

18 things that CAUSE cancer: (in no particular order):

Smoking cigarettes
Drinking non-organic milk or eating non-organic dairy products
Hydrogenated oils and trans fatty acids - See Poison In the Food or articles on hydrogenated oils
Mammography radiation - see articles on mammograms
Chemotherapy and radiation
Perfumes and fragrance products
Cosmetics and personal care products - see articles on personal care products
Home cleaning products, including laundry detergent, dryer sheets, etc.
Plastic food containers - includes plastic lining inside food cans
Sodium nitrite - found in most processed meats, see articles on sodium nitrite
Pesticides, PCBs, chlorine and other chemicals
Acrylamides (formed during high-heat food processing such as frying)
Watching television / lack of exercise
Severe emotional distress or relationship stress
Refined sugars / refined grains
Dry cleaning chemicals
Hair color chemicals
Nail polish remover

22 things that PREVENT cancer:

Vitamin D and sunshine - see the Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D
Anti-cancer foods - see articles about anti-cancer foods
Green tea - see articles about green tea
Broccoli and cruciferous vegetables - see articles about broccoli
Medicinal mushrooms - reishi, shiitake, agaricus blazei, etc.
Lycopene and tomatoes
Infra-red saunas and sweat lodges - because sweating expels toxins
Chlorella - see articles on chlorella, or check out a recommended chlorella product: Rejuvenate! From IntegratedHealth.com (product to be launched soon)
Pomegranate seeds - see articles on pomegranate or http://www.ats.org/news.php?id=32  
Omega-3 oils / chia seeds - available from GoodCauseWellness.com
Rainforest herbs - There are many anti-cancer rainforest herbs, including Graviola and Cat's Claw (Una de Gato). Recommended sources is Terry Pezzi of the high-integrity Amazon Herb Company (also helping to preserve the Amazon rainforest) - Another great source of rainforest herbs is Rain Tree with Leslie Taylor.
Juice detoxification - Read books by Dr. Gabriel Cousens or visit his retreat in Southern Arizona
Acupuncture - helps move blood and chi (body's energy)
Sprouts - ALL sprouts are anti-cancer. Best sprouting machine is the EasyGreen Automatic Sprouter (use any search engine to find resellers)
Red clover - Helps cleanse the blood. Find from any supplement maker.
Deep breathing / oxygenation / stress reduction - Best product is called Stress Eraser (highly recommended)
Yoga, Tai Chi or Pilates - These all boost lymph circulation
Organic Raw Cacao - (real chocolate) - Good sources are NavitasNaturals.com, Superfoods.com or Raw Guru.
Therapeutic massage - helps move lymph, boost circulation
Mint - grow your own (the easiest plant to grow)
Apricot pits / laetrile / vitamin B17 - View this World Without Cancer video featuring G. Edward Griffin
Blackberries - Most berries contain some form of anti-cancer medicine The cancer industry attacks nearly all genuine cancer solutions.

After examining this list, it's not difficult to notice something quite curious: The cancer industry promotes many things that cause cancer while attacking most things that prevent cancer. Naturopathic doctors who once prescribed laetrile for cancer patients, for example, have been run out of the country or arrested. Herbal product companies have been censored to such a degree that none dare tell the truth about the anti-cancer effects of their own products, and even broccoli growers and marketers are scared into remaining silent about the remarkable, scientifically-proven anti-cancer effects of broccoli.

In other words, if you want to know what the cancer industry supports or attacks, just check to see which list it's on. If it's on the list of things that prevent cancer, the cancer industry (including most of its doctors, oncologists, non-profits and government regulators) will be against it. If it's on the list of things that cause cancer, they will promote it.

The exception to this is, of course, tobacco. That's a substance that doctors once gladly promoted in magazine advertisements, claiming that smoking was good for your health and even improved your teeth! But today, the tobacco scam has long since been revealed, and even conventional medicine is now squarely against this substance that they once strongly promoted.

The American Medical Association, by the way, used to actually run ads for cigarettes in its flagship medical journal, JAMA. Doctors can always be bought off and made to promote whatever poison is making the most money this decade (these people have no shame). In the 1950's, it was cigarettes. Today, it's pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. Different drugs, same scam. But money was always -- and IS always -- the bottom line for conventional medicine.


Beating cancer -- how to take charge of your cancer cure and outlive the lies of the cancer industry (http://www.newstarget.com/010886.html)

Here's an example of how backwards health care really is in this country: it's actually front-page news that a cancer center is serving anti-cancer foods in its cafeteria. This is taking place at the
Miami Cancer Center at Mercy Hospital. And it's apparently a big deal. Wow! Front-page news. Nation-wide news. Here is a cancer center serving foods that actually prevent cancer. Who woulda thunk it? Just the fact that this is news tells you how backwards the health care system in this country is, because if they're just now serving anti-cancer foods, what on earth have they been serving up until today? Cancer-causing foods?

Today, you can find fast food restaurants, pizza joints and hamburger stands in hospitals all across the country. It should be an embarrassment to organized medicine. It should be an outrage to every patient who enters such an institution. These are supposed to be places of health, yet they are serving people foods with toxic ingredients like sodium nitrate, saturated animal fats, refined white flour in the buns of these hamburgers and MSG in the meats. There's sugar in the tomato sauce, acrylamides in the fried foods, and hardly a speck of life left in the menus of most hospitals. There is truly dangerous food being served right now in cafeterias at cancer centers, hospitals, clinics, and, of course, public schools, all across the country. Stop killing the hospital patients with junk food
There's a heart surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic who has taken a stand and said, "We want McDonalds out of this clinic. We want these junk food and fast food restaurants out." But the staff there is against him. They say, "We want our junk food. We want our diabetes-promoting, heart disease-promoting, cancer-causing foods. It's our choice." They want this stuff. Gosh, I hate to say it, but have you ever been in a hospital and looked at the health of the nursing staff? I used to volunteer in a nursing home. I have seen it first-hand. These are not the healthiest people in the world, not by a long shot.

I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone with this, especially if you're trying to make a positive difference. I'm not trying to attack any particular individual, but how can we call this health care? How can we call it anything other than a disease care system? It's a sick care system, and the whole system itself is sick. It thrives on sickness. It thrives on keeping people sick by actually feeding them disease-promoting foods as they come into the hospital (and a little more disease-promoting food when they leave the hospital). By the way, right in the middle of your surgery recovery, they're going to bring you more disease-causing foods, right to your bedside. They're going to charge you gourmet meal prices for that food, even while it's loaded with chemicals that will probably make it even harder for your body to recover from whatever surgical procedure you just endured.

How dare they call it medicine

It's just outrageous. Sometimes I get emails from doctors who say I'm outrageous. They say, "How dare you question organized medicine? How dare you think that you know anything about nutrition or healing?" I say back to them, "How dare you claim to be a doctor when you're working in a system that's feeding disease-promoting foods to patients! How dare you claim to be a doctor! On one hand, you claim to have all this medical knowledge, and, on the other hand, you're sick, your staff is sick, your patients are sick and you are feeding them disease-causing foods inside and outside the hospital. You're not even teaching people how to be healthy. How dare you call yourself an M.D. or a doctor! You have no such right."

A medical degree does not give you the right to claim you know how to heal people. You know nothing about healing until you venture outside the bounds of traditional organized medicine and have healed yourself first. If you have a healthy body and mind and a healthy sense of self esteem, and you don't have to step on all the people around you with your over-inflated ego, and if you have the ability to be a healer and share information with people and help uplift people around you, then you can call yourself a doctor, and it doesn't matter what degree you have. You can call yourself a doctor when you are a true healer, not when you have a medical degree and you work in an institution of disease called a hospital or a cancer center.

All hail the cancer center

When I say institutions of disease, I mean it. Look at what they're named -- an institution that's supposed to be treating people with cancer. What's it called? It's called a cancer center, as if it's a center erected to worship cancer. It's a cancer center.

Shouldn't it be called an anti-cancer center? Shouldn't it be called a health or wellness center? Well, no, it's not their focus. Their focus is on cancer. It's called a cancer center, almost as if it's some kind of monument to the disease. I think that all the people whose jobs depend on disease in some way worship the disease. They worship them because those diseases give them job security. The very names of these institutions eliminate any possibility of living in a world free of cancer, because if you have an institution named the Cancer Center, then how in the world can anybody who works there even consider the possibility of curing cancer? Then what would it be? It would be the Empty Cancer Center. It would be the Closed Down Cancer Center.

Shouldn't these institutions really be there to try to help people eliminate cancer? But that's not what all these cancer centers are doing. They are really there to manage these diseases. I say, bring in the alternative healers, and help these people be free of cancer. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to -- clinicians, people trained in herbal medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine, or even those trained in Western medicine -- who are doing some advanced research on cancer. They've cured cancer, or more accurately, they've helped patients cure their own cancers, because cancer is a disease that is actually quite easy to beat, especially if it's caught in the early stages.

This is not a difficult disease to eliminate, but in modern medicine they try to make it complicated. They try to talk about the microbiology of what's happening, at the cellular level, what's happening with the angiogenesis factors and the genetic influences. They try to figure out the biochemistry and physics, but they get lost in all the details. They forget about the big picture, which is, "Hey, we want this patient to be free of cancer. What do we have that really works?"

Many cures for cancer exist right now

At last count, in my own research, I counted 18 cures for cancers -- 18 different cures. They cover all different kinds of cancer: multiple myeloma, brain tumors, leukemia, breast cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer and many others. Eighteen different cures for cancer. Now, the FDA says, "Oh no, you can't claim there's a cure for cancer." And organized medicine says, "Oh no, you can't claim there's a cure. There's no such thing as a cure." Then, if a patient is actually cured using some of these therapies, organized medicine still won't admit they're cured. They don't have the guts to stand up and say that maybe they were wrong, and maybe there is a cure for cancer. They think, "No, no, no, there is no such thing." I don't think any cancer center will admit there is a cure for cancer. They'll say, "No, it's just a permanent remission."

I'm here to tell you that there are cures for cancer. In fact, every day when I go running through the desert, I'm jogging by literally tons and tons of anti-cancer desert plants right outside my back yard. People are being cured of cancer every single day all over the world. They are curing themselves of cancer. It is just that it has been criminalized here in the United States. It has been outlawed because we live in the Dark Ages of modern medicine, in a system of oppression that tries to censor the truth and make curing cancer illegal. It's a system that tries to discredit all these alternative therapies and at the same time, tries to make a fortune managing all of these diseases that are easily preventable and curable if people just turn to therapies like a raw foods diet or the elimination of all animal products and processed foods from their diets. Remember, it's headline news that this cancer center is serving anti-cancer foods. That tells you just how far behind things are in this country. You would think with all the hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into cancer research -- this so-called research that's going on to find a cure for cancer -- that with all these doctors who study cancer, all these oncologists trained in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and all this incredible research that the pharmaceutical companies claim to be doing to make your life better... with all this going on, you would think somewhere along the line, somebody would have said, "Gee, maybe we should feed these people some anti-cancer foods."

It's common sense, right? If they put me in charge (which will never happen, so don't worry), I would walk in and scrap that whole menu at the cancer center, and I would give them a menu of serious anti-cancer foods: things like raw, organic vegan foods, loaded with broccoli, sprouts, cauliflower, kale, garlic, beans, berries, raw nuts and the like. After a couple of months of that, and some alternative therapies, those patients would never need to come back. Most of those patients would be free of cancer. Of course, that is one of the many reasons why they would never invite me to come in and do something like that. I would bankrupt these cancer centers by eliminating all their repeat business. I'd send people home cancer-free. And that's bad for business in the cancer industry. Their greatest fear, I believe, is that someone will actually promote a simple cure for cancer. It would wipe out a billion-dollar industry of profit and power.

Cancer cures from nature.

Sometimes people say, "Okay, Mike, let's hear what you've got. You're talking big about this stuff. Name some anticancer foods." That's easy. Let's start with broccoli. Get some raw broccoli in your body. Broccoli sprouts are potent anticancer foods. Let's talk about some nutrition supplements -- selenium, zinc and modified citrus pectin for prostate cancer, for example. Vitamin D is a potent moderator of cancer tumor cell growth, so if you get enough vitamin D in your body, you're going to prevent and even help reverse prostate, cervical and breast cancers. The way you get vitamin D is to get some sunshine on your skin. This is not rocket science, folks. Doctors try to make it sound complicated, but it isn't.

You have anticancer properties in blueberries, and in all of the small fruits – blackberries, raspberries, acai and goji berries from Asia. Then you have onion, ginger and garlic. Garlic is phenomenal as an anti-cancer food. It contains sulphur compounds that just obliterate cancer cells. You've got spirulina, which contains anticancer phytochemicals called phycocyanin, which provide a blue-green color. When injected into breast tumors in laboratory studies in Japan, it's been shown to cause breast tumors to self-destruct. You've got chlorella and oxygen treatments. There is a product out there called Cell Food; when you take it into your body, it creates nascent oxygen and hydrogen. This oxygen helps create an environment in the body in which your body naturally eliminates its own cancerous cells. That's just the tip of the iceberg here.

Then you have traditional Chinese medicine, with some powerful anti-cancer herbs. There's an outstanding book on that by Michael Tierra, who is a master herbalist, and really one of the best herbalist authors out there. He's got a book called Treating Cancer with Herbs. This book teaches you about medicinal mushrooms -- the reishi mushrooms and the shitake mushrooms. Beyond that, we have anti-cancer oils: salmon oil, flax oil and cod liver oil. The list just goes on and on.

I haven't really covered them all, but in addition all those healing foods, there are all the foods you can eliminate from your diet to stop poisoning your body and stop giving yourself cancer. What are those foods? Well, there's sodium nitrate, which is in almost every processed meat product, found in every grocery store in the world, so if you just eliminate processed meats, your cancer risk plummets. You should also eliminate hydrogenated oils and partially-hydrogenated oils, both of which strongly promote cancer.

Eliminate homogenized milk and dairy products. Stop drinking liquids excreted from the glands of other species. (You thirsty pervert...) Eliminate all red meat from your diet. Eliminate all liquid refined sugar, such as soft drinks made of high-fructose corn syrup. Eliminate all food additives, preservatives and artificial colors; eliminate MSG, which is known as monosodium glutamate, yeast extract, hydrolyzed vegetable protein and autolyzed vegetable protein. Eliminate aspartame and sucralose and all the artificial chemical sweeteners. Eliminate white flour; stop barbecuing your meat, because barbecuing meat creates chemicals that cause colon cancer and stomach cancer. Stop cooking your food at extremely high temperatures. Or, better yet, become a live foods vegan. I'm just naming off a few things. You can be cancer-free if you follow the recipe.

Curing cancer is not profitable

So why aren't the cancer centers in this country giving people this recipe? It's freely available. I just named off some of the best strategies out there that are very easy to follow. So why aren't cancer centers giving people this information? Ill tell you why. There's no money in it. A world free of cancer is a world without any paying cancer patients. That's why there's virtually NO effort or investment being spent on the prevention of this disease.

The answers to cancer, to living free of this disease, are right here in front of us, right now. You can walk outside your door and look at nature, and those are the answers to cancer right there. It's not that difficult. It's eating foods of different colors; the rainbow diet. There's an anti-cancer strategy right there. There's another book called, Eat to Beat Cancer that lists all the anti-cancer foods out there, everything from nuts and peanuts to legumes, brown rice, onions, kale, spinach and cauliflower. If you do these things right, you won't have cancer. There's another book by Dr. Gabriel Cousens called Conscious Eating that gives you loads of information on using live foods to eliminate chronic disease (and heal the planet, too).

Cancer is not a matter of luck. Only doctors and pharmaceutical companies want you to think it's a matter of luck. If they can convince you to believe that, then you'll go through life thinking it doesn't matter what you eat, and then you are much more likely to have a poor diet and end up with the disease, which makes them a lot of money.

I am just astonished at what we have in this country -- this system that claims to offer health care is a complete myth. There is no health care. There is just disease management, exploitation and profiteering. That's the system we have in this country today, and the fact that it is headline news that a cancer center is serving anti-cancer foods is proof that we still live in the Dark Ages of modern medicine. We still live in an age of censorship and oppression, distortion and propaganda. The organizations out there pushing the pro-cancer propaganda include every major medical association and disease organization you can name. They also include medical journals that disallow the publication of articles on alternative medicine. These are some of the players who are defending this "Dark Ages" system they call medicine, which is really just a gimmick to turn the human body into a profit-generating machine for Big Pharma.

You were designed to live in a state of perfect health

How do I know all this to be true at a personal level? Because I'm the healthiest I've ever been in my life. I am healthy because I fired my doctor, I swore off prescription drugs and I started teaching myself about health and nutrition. I reversed my disease. I eliminated chronic back pain and I eliminated my borderline diabetes, obesity and depression. I did it all by turning to nature and ignoring all the information from modern medicine, companies, the FDA, the mainstream press, medical schools, cancer centers and everybody else. That information will, in my opinion, lead to a life of chronic pain, degenerative disease, and medical bankruptcy.

If you want to be healthy, you've got to acknowledge your human nature and your interaction with the natural world around you. You have a blueprint for health in you right now. You're supposed to be healthy. That's your DNA. Doctors always talk about DNA as providing a blueprint for disease, which is hogwash. They never tell you about how your DNA actually is designed to keep you at a perfect point of health. That's the whole point of the DNA -- to pass on a blueprint that lets you survive and reproduce. That's basic science, folks. How on earth can doctors think that DNA passed down through hundreds of thousands of generations could have a gene that would cause heart disease? That's ridiculous. They must not know anything at all about natural selection, because if someone caries a gene that kills them, guess what? They don't reproduce. So the genes that you have are genes that have survived and thrived through all of these generations, from healthy ancestry down to today, giving you the gift of a blueprint for perfect health.

The only reason you aren't in perfect health today, and the only reason we aren't healthy as a nation, is because we've gone off the map. We stopped following the blueprint. We changed our environment. We changed our foods, our diet, our levels of stress, our use of toxic products like personal care products, deodorants, shampoos, laundry products and soaps with triclosan and antibacterial chemicals. We started popping prescription drugs like a bunch of crack addicts in this country. Forty percent of the nation now is on prescription drugs. Then when people get sick, we poison them with chemotherapy and radiation, and we call it medicine.

So you want to be healthy? Get back to your nature. Recognize that you have a natural blueprint for being perfectly healthy. Now, as one disclaimer to all this, I want to tell you that it is important to work with a qualified health professional during any major health transition. That should be a naturopathic physician, ideally... or an M.D. who has really educated himself or herself about alternative medicine, nutrition and lifestyle changes. And there are such M.D.s out there. You just have to ask around and find one. You can't just settle for any old M.D., or you might get someone who is a big drug pusher.

And if you ever have to go to a hospital or cancer center, take my advice: Bring your own food. You don't want the stuff they're going to feed you; that is, unless you want to stick around the center for a lot longer. If that's the case, then go ahead and eat their hospital food. That will keep you in the hospital a few extra days, probably. But if you want to be healthy and free of disease, or if you want to recover from an injury or some kind of surgical procedure, bring your own food.

Real medicine is taking place at the personal level. It's taking place with education across the internet. It's taking place in the homes of people who are taking charge of their health. That's real medicine and real healing. Be part of it. Be healthy, and help us move out of the Dark Ages of modern medicine and into an era of authentic healing and disease prevention; an age where we can have the majority of the population healthy rather than chronically diseased and addicted to toxic prescription drugs. Be healthy yourself. Set a good example. My name is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and I thank you for your interest in this information.


Consumer Health Warning -- Do not buy any foods or groceries containing the following ingredients:

Sodium nitrite (meats)
Aspartame/Nutrasweet (diet soda)
Yeast extract (snacks)
Hydrogenated oils
High-fructose corn syrup
Monosodium glutamate (soups) [Note: this is known by many other names.

These ALWAYS contain MSG:

Glutamate Textured protein, Monosodium glutamate, Hydrolyzed protein, Monopotassium glutamate (any protein that is hydrolyzed), Glutamic acid, Yeast extract, Calcium caseinate, Yeast food, Sodium caseinate, Autolyzed yeast, Gelatin, Yeast nutrient.

These very OFTEN contain MSG:

Malt extract Flavors(s) & Flavoring(s), Malt flavoring, Natural flavor(s) & flavoring(s), Barley malt, Natural pork flavoring, Bouillon, Natural beef flavoring, Stock, Natural chicken flavoring, Broth Seasonings (the word "seasonings"), Carrageenan, Soy sauce, Maltodextrin, Soy sauce extract, Whey protein, Soy protein, Whey protein isolate, Soy protein isolate, Whey protein concentrate, Soy protein concentrate, Pectin, anything "Protein fortified", anything "Enzyme modified".

Hidden MSG is not limited to use in food. MSG sensitive people have reported reactions to soaps, shampoos, hair conditioners, and cosmetics that contain hidden MSG. The most obvious common hiding places are in ingredients called "hydrolyzed protein" and "amino acids." Drinks, candy, and chewing gum are also potential sources of hidden MSG.

Also, aspartic acid, found in aspartame (NutraSweet) ordinarily causes MSG type reactions in MSG sensitive people. Aspartame is found in some medications. Check with your pharmacist.

Binders and fillers for medications, nutrients, and supplements, both prescription and non-prescription, including enteral feeding materials and some fluids administered intravenously in hospitals, may contain MSG. Reactions to MSG are dose related, i.e., some people react to even very small amounts of MSG while others usually only react to relatively more. MSG-induced reactions may occur immediately after contact or after as much as 48 hours. Softgels (gelatin) also contains MSG, so you should puncture them and squeeze out or bite and suck out the contents and discard the gelatin capsule. Hard capsules do not contain MSG.]

Learn why in the Health Ranger's food safety guide for consumers: Grocery Warning. Reduce your risk of diabetes, colon cancer, leukemia, breast cancer, heart disease, dementia, osteoporosis and other diseases by learning to identify and avoid toxic ingredients in common foods and groceries. Click here to learn more:
http://www.truthpublishing.com/grocerywarning.html


Some excerpts of Dr. Blaylock's newsletters regarding chemotherapy:

During conventional treatments for cancer, the release of internal toxins can be quite substantial. For example, it has been shown that cancer patients with poor detoxification systems are more likely to die from their treatment, especially following chemotherapy. This is because of the direct toxicity of the chemotherapy on cells and organs, or from the sudden massive release of dead cells into the blood and lymph.

Q: Our daughter-in-law had chemo for small cell lung cancer. During treatment, she suffered greatly with pain in her hands and fingers. It is now a year since her  treatment ended and that pain remains. She is being told that she has nerve damage and there is nothing that will help. She is only in her early 50s and has a busy career in real estate. Can you recommend any vitamins, minerals or other supplements that might help heal her? We would really appreciate any help you could give us. — Fran G., New Port Richey, Fla.

A: Nerve damage by chemotherapy agents is very common and unnecessary. Unfortunately, most oncologists are not aware of the treatments available and that these supplements, when given before and during treatments, can prevent nerve damage and they do not interfere with the effectiveness of chemotherapy, in fact, they enhance its effectiveness. Studies indicate that much of the damage is secondary to free radical damage.

Antioxidants, such as the following can help most patients:
• Natural vitamin E such as Unique-E (800 IU a day)
• Buffered vitamin C (1,000 mg. three times a day)
• A multivitamin/mineral such as Extend Core (http://www.vrp.com/ProductPage.aspx?ProdID=3233&zType=1)
• Methylcobalamin, or vitamin B12 (5,000 ug a day)
• Folate (800 ug a day)
• Selenomethionine (200 ug a day)
and
• Magnesium citrate or citrate/malate (two capsules twice a day). Magnesium depletion is especially associated with the use of certain chemotherapy drugs, such as cisplatin. In fact, levels can fall so low that the result is heart damage and brain injury. Birth control pills are also among prescription drugs that sap magnesium, and women taking these over many years are not only more prone to developing cancer, but they are at greater risk during subsequent surgery and chemotherapy. You should know  that if you have been taking certain medications for years, you are at great risk. Unfortunately, most doctors are either unaware of this fact or simply choose to  ignore it.

Some other important substances: riboflavin (500 mg. twice a day), and thiamine  (100 mg. twice a day).

I recommend to patients that they take acetyl-L-carnitine or ALC (note: this is  not the same as L-Carnitine, which is taken for cholesterol) as 500 mg. capsules — two twice a day between meals. Also add 50 mg. of R-lipoic acid once a day with a meal. Finally, I would suggest lecithin as a 21-grain product you can get from (www.doctorstrust.com). The dose is two tablespoons twice a day. This helps nerve repair.

Q: What would you suggest to strengthen the immune system of a patient who has been treated for lymphoma and is in remission? Some experts have concerns with the use of beta-glucans and other substances that are known to boost immune cells, because they may also boost the malignant cells. — Nancy V., Shreveport, La.

A: Oncologists seem to worry about the wrong things and ignore the real breakthroughs in cancer research. There is compelling evidence that a number of nutrients (especially flavonoids) play a vital role in both preventing and suppressing the growth and  spread of existing cancer. It is an axiom of oncology that the most important weapon within the body against cancer is the immune system, but not all of the immune system. Cellular immunity appears to be most important. This is what attracted researchers to products such as beta-1,3/1,6-glucan — it primarily stimulates cellular immunity.

It has also been shown to protect normal bone marrow cells from damage during chemotherapy treatment. Because it can protect and replenish normal bone marrow cells, oncologists worry that it might also stimulate leukemia stem cells as well.

Theory is fine, but a look at the studies that have been done is necessary to examine this question. While there are a few studies that have tested this, especially in humans, the research we have, indicates that beta-glucan increases the survival  of animals with various types of leukemia. Cell culture studies using human leukemia cells provide a mechanism, in that it increases the attack of macrophage antileukemic cells against surviving leukemia cells. Other studies have shown an enhancement  of the effectiveness of chemotherapy when beta-glucan is added. (My Note: Immune-Assist contains various forms of beta-glucan from medical mushrooms)

There are several studies that show that, in treating prostate cancer, nutritional treatments are as good as, or better than, most conventional treatments such as  chemotherapy and radiation. Moreover, there are a number of severe side effects  associated with treating prostate cancer with radiation. Most importantly, radiation rarely controls the cancer.

Vegetables — for Better Health

Vegetables have been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of cancer in both experimental animals and in humans. To a lesser extent, so have fruits. There are a handful of studies that failed to show anticancer benefits — but they were poorly done.

For example, researchers counted foods such as potatoes as vegetables. While potatoes are technically vegetables, they have little or no anti-cancer effect. Also, many of the participants in these studies ate foods that contained high levels of omega-6 oils, aspartame, MSG, and other cancercausing food additives. Studies where the  entire diet was controlled and included healthy vegetables and low levels of omega-6 oils and food additives showed dramatic reductions in the risk of cancer.

Vegetables contain hundreds of complex chemicals called flavonoids. They are known to prevent cancers and to control the growth of existing cancers, and to do so with greater safety and effectiveness than conventional chemotherapy. Flavonoids work their magic, in part, as powerful and versatile antioxidants, and they are much  more effective than the vitamins such as vitamin C, E and the carotenoids.

Oncologists continue to tell their patients to avoid antioxidants and even to avoid eating vegetables, mistakenly thinking they will interfere with treatment. Studies have confirmed that this is not true. Moreover, they have shown that antioxidants, such as flavonoids and special vitamin mixtures, greatly enhance the effectiveness of conventional treatments.

I have observed, over the years, that people who have survived advanced cancers  — believed to be terminal — either juiced virtually all their vegetables or ate  very large amounts of nutrient-dense vegetables. New studies have shown that cancers are dependent on certain enzymes for their growth, such as tyrosine kinase, Cox-2, LOX, NFkB, and phospholipase A2. Blocking these enzymes can often either stop cancer growth or make it disappear (through a process called apoptosis). A large number of the vegetable flavonoids, such as quercetin, curcumin, apigenin, and luteolin, block these enzymes in cancer cells, but have no effect on normal cells.

One enzyme, called aromatase, plays a major role in the growth and spread of a number of cancers, including breast and prostate cancers. This enzyme allows breast ductal tissue to produce estrogen locally in the ducts at levels 40 times higher than in the blood. Blocking aromatase, which converts testosterone into estrogen, inhibits breast cancer growth.

The flavonoid apigenin (from celery) has been shown to inhibit aromatase enzyme  8.7 times more powerfully than specially designed drugs. Quercetin (found in onions, teas, cranberries, etc.) inhibits it 1.5 times better. This enzyme also plays a  major role in prostate cancers, and pharmaceutical companies are spending large  sums of money to develop a drug that will inhibit this enzyme.

DHA, from algae or fish oils, also inhibits many of these cancer-promoting enzymes and has been shown to significantly inhibit the growth of cancer cells, especially breast cancer. It is interesting to note that soy (genistein) strongly stimulates aromatase activity, which explains the recent finding that soy extracts enhance  the growth and spread of breast cancer.

Preventing Cancer Spread

It’s been said that to best deal with the enemy, you must know the enemy. That makes good sense. Cancers kill by invading surrounding tissues and spreading throughout the body (metastasis). It is the failure of our body to contain the wayward cancer cells that causes the problem.

One way cancer cells spread is by secreting large amounts of a group of enzymes  called metalloproteinases (MMP-2 and MMP-9) that dissolve protein. Studies have  shown that women whose tumors secrete large amounts of these enzymes have very aggressive cancers, the highest recurrence rate and a shorter survival. Inhibiting these enzymes dramatically reduces the spread of cancer and improves the patient’s prognosis.  Several flavonoids inhibit these enzymes. For example, luteolin (artichoke extract and celery) inhibits MMP-2, and curcumin inhibits MMP-9. Together they reduce this metastasis-promoting enzyme significantly. Vitamin C (as magnesium ascorbate) also lessens the ability of cancer to spread. Grapeseed extract, Bilberry and Grapeskin extract also do.

Why You Should Avoid Sugar and Artificial Sweeteners

Because of cancer cells’ unusual metabolism, they are extremely dependent on sugar for their growth and spread. Sugar is a cancer fertilizer. You should eat only complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, and those only in moderation. Avoid starches like potatoes, since the body utilizes them as sugars.

It is also important to avoid eating a lot of fruits. Even though they contain some useful flavonoids, they also contain high levels of sugar. Some sugarless fruit  extracts, such as blueberry extract, can be used. Raspberries are of special value, since they contain a very powerful anticancer flavonoid called ellagic acid (you can also buy this as a concentrated extract).

It is also important to avoid artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame and Splenda. Aspartame has been shown to dramatically increase cancer development in a number of studies. And aspartame is metabolized in the body into formaldehyde, which continues to damage DNA over a very long time.

Most people refuse to drink water because they say it tastes bad, but this is because of the high levels of chlorine that have been added. Drink only filtered or distilled water. To make it even healthier, you can add a small amount of magnesium to each glass — about 20 milligrams. Once you drink pure water, you will begin to prefer it.

Another drink that contains powerful anti-cancer flavonoids (called catachins) is white tea. While green tea gets a lot of press, white tea has higher levels of the healthy flavonoids and dramatically lowers levels of fluoride and aluminum. Black tea has very high levels of these two cancer promoters.
Eat Your Vegetables!

Some vegetables are much more powerful than others in preventing and treating cancer.

The best vegetables to prevent cancer include:
• Broccoli (especially broccoli sprouts)
• Brussels sprouts
• Chinese cabbage
• Celery
• Turnip greens
• Spinach
• Kale
• Parsley

Drink two cups a day of concentrated tea. Here are some special supplements that can help defeat cancer.

Diindolylmethane (DIM) 100 milligrams: This is a metabolic product of a compound found in broccoli (indole-3-carbinol). Studies in people have shown that it increases the level of the cancer-inhibiting 2-hydroxyestrone and lowers 16-alpha hydroxyestrone, which promotes cancer.

Calcium-D-glucarate: This compound occurs naturally in humans and animals. Its main action is to enhance detoxification of carcinogenic compounds and to help the body eliminate them. In addition, calcium-D-glucarate inhibits the formation of cancers, especially breast cancers. Studies using human breast cancer have shown dramatic results.

In one study, a combination of carotenoids (precursors of vitamin A found in green vegetables) and calcium D-glucarate reduced breast cancer formation by an astounding 70 percent. A number of trials are currently underway at major cancer centers such as M.D. Anderson Cancer Center to see if it is as effective as tamoxifen in preventing cancer. It has no significant side effects, while tamoxifen has a number of dangerous side effects, including cancer.

Finally, new research clearly shows that glutamate (an excitotoxin) powerfully stimulates the growth, invasion, and spread of a number of human cancers, including breast  and prostate cancers. People who eat diets containing excitotoxic food additives, such as MSG, aspartame, hydrolyzed proteins, soy protein isolates, autolyzed yeast, and other disguised names for high glutamate products, are adding a potent cancer fertilizer to their diets. These studies clearly show that all cancer cells which researchers examined, including breast cancers, contain abundant glutamate receptors. Turning off these receptors increases the death of cancer cells, especially if combined with conventional treatments. Avoid food additives, and check food labels before purchasing products. For more information on cancer prevention and treatment of  cancer with nutrition, see my book, “Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients” (www. russellblaylockmd.com). This book also contains a number of scientific references.

Cancer-Fighting Fats

Think all fats are created equal? Think again. These fats are packed with cancerfighting properties.

• Omega-3 Fats: These are fats found in fish, algae, and flaxseed, but omega-3 fats from flaxseed should be avoided, since humans cannot convert them properly and they can, in fact, be harmful. The most powerful form of omega-3 oil is its DHA component, which inhibits cancer in a number of ways. About 1,000 milligrams to 2,000 milligrams a day is sufficient.

• Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA): This is a special type of fat that reduces inflammation, lowers cancer development, and melts visceral fat. The effective dose is 1,000 milligrams a day.

• Gamma-Linoleic Acid (GLA): This is another potent anti-cancer oil, extracted from evening primrose or borage plants. Studies have shown that it not only prevents  breast cancer, it suppresses the growth of existing breast cancers. It can also  enhance the effectiveness of tamoxifen against breast cancer. Take 1,000 milligrams a day.

Cancer-Fueling Nutrients
• Sugar
• Omega-6 fats (vegetables oils)
• Calcium (prostate)
• SAMe
• Methionine
• Glutamate and aspartate
• Some vitamins when used alone

Special Anticancer Nutrients

If I were to make the perfect drug to fight cancer, I would want three things.

First, I would want it to kill or fix cancer cells without hurting normal cells. That is, it would have to be selective. Second, I would want it to make cancer cells more susceptible to other cancer treatments. And third, I would want it to protect the normal cells from the harmful effects of the other cancer treatments. Presently, there is no drug or combination of drugs that can do these things.

Yet God already created the perfect treatment for us. The same plant-based components listed in the sidebar for cancer prevention also accomplish our three goals. In  fact, they do a lot more. Let’s look at the ways these nutrients combat cancer:

• Nutrients can suppress enzymes that enable cancer growth and proliferation. All cancers require special enzymes to help them grow and spread throughout the body. In fact, cancer cells will force production of more of these enzymes on demand.  For example, one enzyme (ornithine decarboxylase) multiplies 30 times in benign  tumors and 100 times in malignant tumors. Suppressing this enzyme can slow the growth of these tumors. Another (tyrosine kinase) plays a major role in cancer cell invasion.

Plants contain about 5,000 different compounds, known as flavonoids. Some of these flavonoids — such as apigenin (celery), curcumin (tumeric), EGCG (green tea extract), isothiocyanates (broccoli), luteolin (artichokes) and quercetin (onions, apples  and teas) — can powerfully restrain enzymes, but only in cancer cells. This means the tumor’s growth is slowed and it is therefore less likely to spread. This has been confirmed in a number of studies.

• Nutrients can cause cancer cells to kill themselves off.

All cells contain special “suicide genes” (p53, p21) that, when activated, can kill them. Normally, this is what happens when a cell is in danger of becoming a cancer cell. But once established, a cancer cell can switch off this gene, thus making  itself immortal. More and more nutrients have been found to wake up this vital gene, including extracts of both green tea and persimmon, curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, luteolin and resveratrol. DHA, from omega-3 fats, can also activate the cancer cell’s suicide genes. When combined with traditional chemotherapy agents, these flavonoids and DHA can dramatically improve the selective annihilation of cancer cells, with no adverse effects on normal cells. In fact, they protect normal cells, making them stronger and less likely to transform into cancer cells themselves.

Vegetables to Include in Your Vita Mix
• Brussels sprouts
• Broccoli
• Celery
• Cauliflower
• Kale
• Spinach
• Greens (turnip, mustard, collard)
• Cilantro
• Carrots
• Squash

Fruits to Add to Your Vita Mix
• Blueberry extract (sugar-free)
• Raspberries*
• Blackberries*
(*) – DO NOT ADD if you presently have cancer.

Nutrients That Improve Detoxification
• Curcumin
• Quercetin
• Silymarin (milk thistle extract)
• DHA
• Taurine
• Indole-3 carbinol
• MSM and glutathione
• Mixed carotenoids (canthaxanthin, astaxanthin)

Food Allergies and the Leaky Gut

Only in the last decade has anyone recognized the concept of a leaky gut. And still, most doctors have never heard of it — but it’s a concept that could well explain the evolution of most food allergies.

So what is a leaky gut? As the name implies, leaky gut occurs when the wall of the intestine develops microscopic leaks.

Normally there is a barrier between the food within the intestines and the blood vessels that pick up the digested food components and circulate them throughout  the tissues and organs. These blood vessels are located below the layer of cells lining the gastrointestinal tract.

Digested food normally enters those blood vessels using two routes. It either passes through the cells lining the intestine or through membranes in between the cells. Over 70% of food absorption occurs through the membranes.

However, if the membrane barrier is damaged, whole food particles can enter the  bloodstream. And this is bad — large particles of food trigger the immune reactions we refer to as “food allergies.” It is quite common for newborn babies to suffer from leaky guts, which explains why babies who eat table food during their first six months often suffer with food allergies. But once the immune system has developed and matured, the stomach no longer experiences leaks.

But how does a person develop a leaky gut in the first place?

There are also a number of drugs and medical procedures that can damage the membrane barrier. Among them are aspirin and non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) like Advil and Naproxen. Steroids (cortisone), radiation treatments and chemotherapy drugs can also be quite harmful. Once a person’s intestinal lining is riddled with microscopic holes, he or she can develop allergies to a variety of foods. This is especially true of everyday foods. Of course some products are more likely to cause allergies than others. At the top of the list are: cow’s milk, soy products, peanuts, corn, cheese, coffee and chocolate.

When the immune system attacks particles of these particular foods, it also worsens any preexisting autoimmune disease — such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis or lupus. And since many of these conditions also exacerbate  the leaky gut syndrome, flare-ups often mimic symptoms of exposure to certain foods. Once the intestine is damaged by inflammation or toxins, the door is open for bacteria, viruses and fungi — which are normally excluded — to enter the bloodstream.

This can lead to a number of symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, aching joints, confusion and difficulty thinking, as well as various skin disorders.

Carnitine and Nerve Disorders

Nerve damage in the arms, and especially the legs, commonly results from a number of disorders — such as diabetes, uremia, atherosclerosis and heavy metal poisoning. It is also caused by complications from the use of certain cancer chemotherapy drugs. The pain and numbness associated with this damage can be incapacitating.

Several studies show that acetyl-l-carnitine can improve and even prevent the nerve damage (neuropathy) associated with cancer chemotherapy. One of the most harmful cancer treatments uses cisplatin, a chemotherapy drug. Amazingly, the carnitine  fights the neuropathy but doesn’t interfere with the drug’s effectiveness.

One recent study found that carnitine also has antiinflammatory properties. Most neuropathies are linked to nerve inflammation. Plus, carnitine increases nerve energy and enhances nerve growth factor — and that speeds nerve healing and also increases protection.

As my previous examples have shown, combining other nutrients with carnitine greatly improves effectiveness.

The substances that benefit nerves most include the B vitamins, magnesium, DHA,  CoQ10, alphalipoic acid and, in the case of diabetic nerve injury, gamma-linolenic acid (GLA).

Note that Acetyl L-Carnitine is not the same as L-Carnitine: L-Carnitine is used for cholesterol and triglycerides.


Antioxidant Blend May Offer Protection in Life Threatening Conditions (such as when undergoing chemo or radiation treatments)
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.



 
 
  Site Map