Excellent article on cancer.
AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY .
Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins :
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime.
3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumours.
4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencie s. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.
WHAT CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutt ing off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.
b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells are being starved.
c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).
e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid i t.
12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup.
13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vita min E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
16. Cancer cells cannot th rive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Cancer, toxic chemicals & pesticides
R. Derache writes in his book Toxicology and Safety of Foods, (published by Tec/Doc/Apria in 1986):
”According to Hayes (1975) and Recht (1980), a full four million different chemical substances have been extracted or synthesized, among which 60,000 are currently in use, including 4,000 as drugs, 2,500 as dietary additives, and 1,500 as pesticides, the remainder being used as industrial and farming chemical compounds as well as in consumer goods.
Instances of short-term poisoning of plants, ground life, ”domestic” insects, game, and water life are manifold and have been given comprehensive coverage.
Long-term effects are more surreptitious and give greater cause for concern, as we are about to show.
It is believed that some three million tons of DDT and eight million tons of polychlorinated biphenyls have been dumped in the environment.
Enduring effects are rated as following: the half-life of DDT in water lasts ten years and that of dieldrine twenty years. In the soil, half-life timespan is greatly extended (forty years for DDT). Metabolically, DDT (0.2 ppm) and PCBs (10 ppm) have been sampled in the fat of antarctic wildlife.
As to the build-up of those chemicals, whether in specific individuals or all the way down the food chain, it has been asserted that earthworms can concentrate soil DDT fourteen-fold while oysters will concentrate 10 to 70,000 times sea water DDT. In man, who comes last in the food chain, concentration is in no way marginal: 2 ppm of DDT in the fat cells of an average European, and 13.5 ppm in the average American.
In addition to ecotoxic hazards, there is a risk of imbalance, with biological units being destabilized and new chemical-resistant pest breeding, which makes diseases, (viroses, bacterioses, etc...), the more insidious, which merely compounds existing headaches.
Once body-unfriendly chemicals have entered the body, they are most commonly breathed out or voided in feces, or the waters. Alternatively, and quite typically, they are first metabolized in the liver, although breakdown usually yields substances of lesser toxicity. Intermediary metabolites may occur that prove more reactive and more toxic than the initial chemical (cf Parathion, Paraoxon). These may be stored for varying periods of time before being released back into particular organs or body fat, for instance, which preferentially concentrates organic chloride pesticides.
A number of insecticides, be they organic chlorides or phosphates or carbamates, in addition to their primary toxic effects, further affect cell metabolic processes by their impact on crucial enzymes like oxyesterases, dehydrogenases, carboxylases, and so on.
Many pesticides induce multiple-function microsomic monooxygenases (M.F.O.) and, consequently, those molecules warrant close attention. In 1965, FALK showed that liver cells constantly called upon to release enzymes for the breakdown of pesticides turned irretrievably hyperplasic. It was further hypothesized that such hyperplasia laid the groundwork for nodules, which adverts to the primary stage of liver cancer.”
Karen Vago writes in Protégez votre corps on the subject of toxicity of pesticides:
excerpted and translated by © 2004 www.healingcancernaturally.com
Copyright Notice
Epidemiological research re the toxicity of pesticides is difficult. Various observations however point to a connection between certain types of cancer and the frequent contact with pesticides, for instance among farm workers. Workers commissioned with the spraying of HCH and Aldrin in Mexico and other Central American countries as well as in the former German Democratic Republic displayed a clear increase in the incidence of gastro-intestinal cancer. Additionally, with various occupations, a connection could be established between contact with such substances and the occurrence of diseases such as leukemia, lymphoma, prostate cancer, melanoma, stomach cancer and multiple myelomas.
She cites these relevant observations: Between 1929 (when pesticides and other noxious organic agents were introduced) and 1979, sperm counts have decreased from 90 million spermatozoa to 60 million, with the fertility rate showing a similar reduction. All tested sperm samples were found to contain pesticide residues.
Observations of persons who had accidentally come into contact with organophosphoric compounds as well as animal experiments* showed concurrent changes in behaviour and electroencephalograms (EEG: a graphical record of electrical brain activity produced by an electroencephalograph).
An anecdotal case story illustrating the possibly major importance of avoiding nonorganic fruits and vegetables
I recently (July 2006) heard of someone who developed colon cancer after living in Thailand for a number of years, where a major part of his diet consisted of pesticide- and otherwise toxin-laden tropical fruit (and vegetables). This slim and previously radiantly healthy man had been a vegetarian for 34 years starting at age 20 and prior to his Thailand experience had mostly been living on organic food.
A report on the quality of fruits and veggies in Thailand found at hawaiianorganicgrowingguide.com/Thailand/foodmostfrightening.pd f summarizes and confirms the dangers inherent in eating nonorganic produce in these terms: “In short, the more one eats fruits and vegetables (grown in that country), the greater one’s risk of cancer.”
Dr. Johanna Budwig on pesticides in combination with a lack of esssential fats:
Interestingly. Dr. Budwig whose oil-protein health protocol appears to offer a good anti-cancer diet, observes the following: "In addition to the lack of vital (esssential) bio-logical fats and the ingestion of extremely dangerous fats, the following items are unbio-logical and to be rejected: all insecticides, many medications, the polluted air brought on by industrial activities... and most preservatives used in our food today. In fact, one could draw up an entire list of additional factors which negatively affect the organism, with their detrimental effects being more pronounced when there is a lack of 'essential fats'."
*Incidentally, in my eyes one of the great sins both against humanity and animals: Animal experiments are as useless and dangerous for humans as they are cruel to animals (e.g. thalidomide was tested safe on rats while penicillin would have never been allowed for human consumption had it initially been tested on guinea pigs or hamsters, since it kills those species). For a good summary re “Does animal testing help human medicine?” see for instance www.saav.org.za/FAQs.htm, and for thalidomide www.health.org.nz. Dr Irwin D Bross PhD writes, “There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer.” Full quote of Dr Bross and others under On Cancer Research
There are better alternatives that do not involve cruelty to animals and give much more reliable results for humans (such as tests performed on human cell cultures). These humane and solely reliable test methods just need to be implemented, and if a sufficiently large part of the public calls for them, they will be applied - to everyone’s benefit! Please consider joining this call!
Cancer Prevention & Sunlight
Cancer Prevention & Sunlight
Excerpted from the book "The Healing Sun", 1999, by Richard Hobday, MSc, PhD. Dr. Hobday is a member of the British Register of Complementary Practitioners and has studied traditional Chinese Medicine and Chinese exercise systems in China. He has many years experience of solar design in buildings and is a leading authority on the history of sunlight therapy.
In some respects cancer is to industrialized countries today what tuberculosis was to the 18th and 19th century: a major cause of death and misery which defeats the best efforts of conventional medicine. Rather ironically the way cancer has been, and continues to be, managed is very similar to the way 'surgical tuberculosis' was dealt with a century ago -- before heliotherapy was rediscovered. [Heliotherapy is the treatment of disease by exposing the body to sunlight.] Then, as now, all of the emphasis was on removing the manifestation of the disease and not on enhancing the patient's ability to overcome it. ...
As far as conventional medicine is concerned, the preferred methods treating cancer are surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. Cancer cells are removed or destroyed and no attempt is made to eliminate the disease by strengthening the body's natural defense systems. Indeed, chemotherapy and radiation do exactly the opposite. Against this background it is understandable that people are turning to non-interventionist 'conservative' techniques as an alternative, or supplement, to surgical and chemical remedies.
A number of alternative therapies have been developed for cancer which claim to use the body's own healing powers rather than drugs or machine-medicine, with varying degrees of success. Sunlight has been used to treat cancer and there is evidence that goes back over half a century which suggests that sunlight exposure prevents deep-seated cancers from developing.
Now, although sunlight can cause basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers in susceptible people, there is a very good correlation between sunlight exposure and low incidence of internal cancers. Death rates from cancer increase with distance from the equator. Or, to put it another way, the nearer you live to the equator the less chance you have of developing an internal cancer. This association has been clearly demonstrated in a number of studies such as the one carried out in 1941 in the United States by Dr Frank Apperly. He examined the statistics on cancer deaths across North America and Canada and found that compared with cities between 10 and 30 degrees latitude, cities between 30 and 40 degrees latitude averaged 85 per cent higher overall cancer death rates; cities between 40 and 50 degrees latitude averaged 118 per cent higher cancer death rates, and cities between 50 and 60 degrees latitude averaged 150 per cent higher cancer death rates.
Dr Apperly also looked at the relationship between sunlight, ambient temperature and skin cancer. He concluded that sunlight produces an immunity to cancer in general and, in places where the mean temperature is less than about 5.5° C, or 42° F, even to skin cancer. However, at mean temperatures higher than this, solar radiation causes more skin cancer despite the increased general immunity to the disease.
So, the nearer one is to the equator, the less chance there is of developing cancer of the breast, colon, lung, etc. There is an increased risk of developing skin cancer but this decreases in cooler climates with mean temperatures below 5.5° C, or 42° F. Dr Apperly appears to have been the first scientist to investigate the relationship between ambient temperature and skin cancer. He also suggested, as others have done before and since, that exposure to sunlight might be an effective way to reduce the number of deaths from internal cancers. He concluded his review of the statistics as follows:
A closer study of the action of solar radiation on the body might well reveal the nature of cancer immunity.
There have been a number of scientific studies in the last 20 years which support the view that sunlight can inhibit cancer, and it is clear that the mortality and incidence of breast cancer and colon cancer in North America and other areas of the world increases with increasing latitude. In 1992, Dr Gordon Ainsleigh published a paper in the journal Preventive Medicine in which he reviewed 50 years worth of medical literature on cancer and the sun. He concluded that the benefits of regular sun exposure appear to outweigh by a considerable degree the risks of squamous-basal skin cancer ... and melanoma. He found trends in epidemiological studies suggesting that widespread adoption of regular moderate sunbathing would result in approximately a one-third lowering of breast and colon cancer death rates in the United States. Colon cancer and breast cancer are the second and third leading causes of cancer deaths in North America and Dr Ainsleigh estimated that about 30,000 cancer deaths would be prevented each year if moderate sunbathing on a regular basis became the norm.
The subject was reviewed again in another American paper published in 1995, entitled Sunlight - Can It Prevent as well as Cause Cancer? The authors were concerned that medical research was largely directed towards investigating the harmful effects of sunlight on fair-skinned individuals, and not on people with dark skin who lived in, or had emigrated to, parts of the United States where the incidence of sunlight was low. They concluded from their review that although there was no definitive proof that sunlight and vitamin D protect humans from the development and progression of carcinomas of the breast, colon or prostate, there were good grounds for questioning any broad condemnation of moderate sun light exposure. They felt that for some Americans -- those with heavily pigmented skin -- lack of solar radiation could be rather more of a problem than too much: that it may well contribute to the high incidence of prostate cancer in black American men and the particularly aggressive progress of cancer of the breast in black women. The final sentence of this paper is as telling, in its own way, as the one at the conclusion of Dr Apperly's paper of 1940 quoted above. The authors suggested that the:
... study of the beneficial effects of sunlight on cancer progression should be removed from the realm of mysticism and thrust in to the scientific arena of experimental studies.
Vitamin D performs a number of important functions besides its role in mineral absorption. By regulating the level of calcium in the blood Vitamin D influences the nervous system, as calcium aids nerve impulse transmission and muscle contraction. It influences the secretion of insulin by the pancreas and plays an important part in regulating the body's immune system. Vitamin D is also involved in the growth and maturation of cells: in laboratory experiments the biologically active form of vitamin D has been shown to inhibit the growth of cancer cells.
Significantly, recent laboratory research confirms that vitamin D deficiency may be an important factor in the emergence of cancer of the breast as well as cancer of the colon, prostate and, to a lesser extent, leukemia, lymphoma and melanoma. Scientists are getting to grips with the mechanisms which account for vitamin D's capacity to retard the progress of cancer. So, the findings of epidemiological studies of sunlight and cancer are supported by work in the laboratory. There are trials under way to see if the vitamin D can be used to treat prostate cancer and other malignancies. There do not, however, appear to have been any major clinical trials to establish whether sunlight can be used in cancer therapy, although there have been reports of its use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)