Wow an amazing trend that I hope continues! Read about it here .
So far it's been difficult for me to consider eating out since most food in restaurants because they use flavor enhancers (MSG) and hydrogenated oils and way too much sugar in any sauce. If this trend continues I will have an easier time eating out that is for sure. Right now I stick to plain broiled or baked meats - no sauces and a vegetable.. not even rice. That I feel is the safest thing to eat at a restaurant. However, I have cut WAY down on animal fats at all so I really don't have much else to eat in a restaurant in that case except a salad but the dressings they might provide will have sugar and hydrogenated fat.
I know some of you reading this might think - what's ONE meal with that stuff once in a while? Well I am not interested in letting my guard down even for ONE meal. It's a bit of work to think about everything that I eat compared to the mindless and carefree eating I did before but I think that is worth the trouble to have superior quality of life, which is what I get from avoiding the toxic crap in food.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Conventional Medicine: Public Enemy No 1
Found this article by Mike Adams that I think succinctly illustrates the imbalance that is going on in conventional medicine today. I think it's the last writhing gasps of a dying system and I am only too happy to help hasten it's demise...
Excerpts:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the irony in all of this? If the woman had been uninsured, I believe the hospital would have thrown the baby out on the street. No insurance = case closed. Uninsured people who desperately need (and want) treatment are denied treatment every day by conventional medical hospitals and clinics. So why is supposedly saving the life of this one infant suddenly so important when saving the lives of all those other uninsured people isn't?
It's the doctor's who think they are God who are causing these problems. They think we are a bunch of idiots who don't know any better and only THEY know what is best for us and it is THEIR surgery or THEIR drugs. We have come a LONG way from the Hippocratic oath when you consider one of the basics of that oath is "First Do No Harm". And just to clarify - it is very harmful to threaten parents to take their kids from them. It is very harmful to give toxic drugs to patients. It is very harmful to dose them with radiation when everyone knows radiation can cause cancer. The ends do NOT justify the means, especially when the ends are from skewed statistics that favor what they want us to think.
For example, they always site the recurrence rate for cancers after treatment. If you get a NEW cancer from the TREATMENT, that doesn't count as a "recurrence". What a bunch of BULLSHIT. So when your doctor cites the "success rate" of conventional cancer treatments, consider how they are coming up with the statistics they are quoting. They are SERIOUSLY flawed. Talk to your friends and relatives who have had cancer treatment and after their fourth bout with cancer, ask them about their "treatment" and see what they think - that is if they are still around to ask.
Excerpts:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let me get this straight. In the United States today, if you don't submit to the harmful drugs and surgery of conventional medicine, you will be:
- Condemned as a criminal.
- Have your child stolen from you.
- Be hunted down by armed cops if you try to rescue your child.
- Receive a bill from the hospital for medical services you refused to authorize.
- Be sued by collections organizations and have your credit ruined if you refuse to pay the bill.
And the irony in all of this? If the woman had been uninsured, I believe the hospital would have thrown the baby out on the street. No insurance = case closed. Uninsured people who desperately need (and want) treatment are denied treatment every day by conventional medical hospitals and clinics. So why is supposedly saving the life of this one infant suddenly so important when saving the lives of all those other uninsured people isn't?
The answer is obvious: The woman has health insurance. And that baby is the hospital's lifeline to big payouts. Call me cynical, but I actually understand what modern medicine is all about: Profit. It's not about health, it's about Ka-Ching!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------It's the doctor's who think they are God who are causing these problems. They think we are a bunch of idiots who don't know any better and only THEY know what is best for us and it is THEIR surgery or THEIR drugs. We have come a LONG way from the Hippocratic oath when you consider one of the basics of that oath is "First Do No Harm". And just to clarify - it is very harmful to threaten parents to take their kids from them. It is very harmful to give toxic drugs to patients. It is very harmful to dose them with radiation when everyone knows radiation can cause cancer. The ends do NOT justify the means, especially when the ends are from skewed statistics that favor what they want us to think.
For example, they always site the recurrence rate for cancers after treatment. If you get a NEW cancer from the TREATMENT, that doesn't count as a "recurrence". What a bunch of BULLSHIT. So when your doctor cites the "success rate" of conventional cancer treatments, consider how they are coming up with the statistics they are quoting. They are SERIOUSLY flawed. Talk to your friends and relatives who have had cancer treatment and after their fourth bout with cancer, ask them about their "treatment" and see what they think - that is if they are still around to ask.
Demand better food with your dollars
Consumers can influence how food is produced by refusing to buy the convenience crap and turning to the more natural products. Here is an example of the dairy farmers starting to realize that they need to respond to consumer demand for milk without hormones.
So each week, when you buy your groceries, you either support food that is made with toxic chemicals by choosing those foods or you send a message to food manufacturers that you won't spend your money on their toxic crap. They WILL get the message and they WILL have to change to stay in business if enough people reject what they are selling us.
A lot of people shy away from organic because it costs so much more. I wonder if they consider the cost of their medical bills down the road by NOT choosing organic, healthier food. Contrary to what the FDA and other institutions tell us, the chemicals they add to our food are NOT safe for us and that is especially true for children who tend to consume more convenience foods, EVEN AT SCHOOL which is a CRIME. More and more schools are starting to respond to the demand by parents for healthier food and elimination of junk food vending machines in schools which should NEVER have happened in the first place.
So each week, when you buy your groceries, you either support food that is made with toxic chemicals by choosing those foods or you send a message to food manufacturers that you won't spend your money on their toxic crap. They WILL get the message and they WILL have to change to stay in business if enough people reject what they are selling us.
A lot of people shy away from organic because it costs so much more. I wonder if they consider the cost of their medical bills down the road by NOT choosing organic, healthier food. Contrary to what the FDA and other institutions tell us, the chemicals they add to our food are NOT safe for us and that is especially true for children who tend to consume more convenience foods, EVEN AT SCHOOL which is a CRIME. More and more schools are starting to respond to the demand by parents for healthier food and elimination of junk food vending machines in schools which should NEVER have happened in the first place.
Zeolite for Detoxification of Heavy Metals
Earlier this week I came upon an article about Zeolite that really piqued my interest. I have been reading the book Hundred Year Lie and it is quite fascinating and alarming at the same time because it makes me realize how toxic our environment has become.
So I found a source for Natural Cellular Defense or Zeolite and decided to also become a distributor at the same time for the Waiora product line. That link goes to my own Waiora store front. I really liked their setup and I can get the Natural Cellular Defense at a little bit of a discount by becoming a distributor and I think the products they have are of good quality.
For example they have capsules that are gelatin free. Gelatin is made from some nasty stuff and I really wanted to avoid whenever possible. I have seen articles that suggest mad cow disease could be passed through gelatin derived from animal products. So I try to get tablets or vegetable gelatin vs regular gelatin capsules for my supplements when I can.
So what exactly is Zeolite? Here is a summary from Dr Gabriel Cousens of what it can do:
So I found a source for Natural Cellular Defense or Zeolite and decided to also become a distributor at the same time for the Waiora product line. That link goes to my own Waiora store front. I really liked their setup and I can get the Natural Cellular Defense at a little bit of a discount by becoming a distributor and I think the products they have are of good quality.
For example they have capsules that are gelatin free. Gelatin is made from some nasty stuff and I really wanted to avoid whenever possible. I have seen articles that suggest mad cow disease could be passed through gelatin derived from animal products. So I try to get tablets or vegetable gelatin vs regular gelatin capsules for my supplements when I can.
So what exactly is Zeolite? Here is a summary from Dr Gabriel Cousens of what it can do:
- Zeolite appears to prevent and may become an important treatment for cancer. In one study, 78 percent of the 65 participants with terminal cancer (many types) are now in complete remission for 12 months (LifeLink Pharmaceuticals, 2005, currently not published).
- It has a chelation-like effect in removing heavy metals (particularly lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic), pesticides, herbicides, PCBs, and other toxins from the body, shown in a study of miners at Duke University. These toxins are strongly correlated with the occurrence of a wide range of diseases, including cancers and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s, autism, and dementia.
- Zeolite also improves liver function, indirectly improving elimination of pesticides, herbicides, and xeno-estrogens.
- Zeolite appears to block viral replication, and may prove to be a potent anti-viral and general remedy for all viruses. To date, 40 anecdotal cases of herpes zoster have reportedly been healed. Preliminary anecdotal case studies suggest that it may help alleviate rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and hepatitis C as well as the common cold and flu.
- Zeolite’s binding power was proven during the Chernobyl disaster, when tons of it were used to remove radioactive cesium and strontium-90 before they contaminated local water systems.
- Zeolite creates a natural buffer in the system by establishing an optimal pH level (between 7.35 and 7.45), which in turn activates healthy brain function and a strong immune system.
- It is an effective detoxifier for prospective mothers and fathers. Anecdotal evidence and centuries of use in Asia suggest that zeolite is safe to use even during pregnancy and breastfeeding, although its safe use in pregnancy has not been proven in double-blind studies.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
New breast screening technology being tested
Researchers Using New Technology For Breast Cancer Testing
A potential new tool for detecting breast cancer is being tested at the University of California, San Diego.
With the new SoftScan technology, a woman’s breasts actually float comfortably in a warm solution without being squeezed while the imaging takes place."
It's basically a laser than shines through the breast that scans through the breast," said Comstock.
SoftScan is an optical scanner that uses a certain frequency of light to scan through the breast to detect areas of increased blood flow that might be a maker for breast cancer."Cancers have potentially more vascular hemoglobin. They may scatter light differently and they may have different oxygenation levels," said Comstock
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I like about this screening tool is it does not involve radioactive injection, irradiating the breasts or traumatizing the breasts as in mammograms, which could actually cause inflammation and lead to new tumors, or could even burst the "tumor capsule" and start the metastasis process.
Between new blood tests and this screening tool, we will be so much better off for screening for breast cancer than we have been for the last 50 years.
A potential new tool for detecting breast cancer is being tested at the University of California, San Diego.
With the new SoftScan technology, a woman’s breasts actually float comfortably in a warm solution without being squeezed while the imaging takes place."
It's basically a laser than shines through the breast that scans through the breast," said Comstock.
SoftScan is an optical scanner that uses a certain frequency of light to scan through the breast to detect areas of increased blood flow that might be a maker for breast cancer."Cancers have potentially more vascular hemoglobin. They may scatter light differently and they may have different oxygenation levels," said Comstock
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I like about this screening tool is it does not involve radioactive injection, irradiating the breasts or traumatizing the breasts as in mammograms, which could actually cause inflammation and lead to new tumors, or could even burst the "tumor capsule" and start the metastasis process.
Between new blood tests and this screening tool, we will be so much better off for screening for breast cancer than we have been for the last 50 years.
Yet another reason to go organic
Company: Organic Spinach not to Blame
Company whose spinach is linked to E. coli outbreak says its organic products cleared
Natural Selection Foods LLC, the country's largest grower of organic produce, said late Sunday that manufacturing codes from packages of spinach that infected patients turned over to health officials all were from non-organic spinach. Natural Selection packages both organic and conventionally grown spinach in separate areas at its San Juan Bautista plant.
Company whose spinach is linked to E. coli outbreak says its organic products cleared
Natural Selection Foods LLC, the country's largest grower of organic produce, said late Sunday that manufacturing codes from packages of spinach that infected patients turned over to health officials all were from non-organic spinach. Natural Selection packages both organic and conventionally grown spinach in separate areas at its San Juan Bautista plant.
Wonderful new trend in hospital food
Hospitals go organic for patients' sake
This is the best news I've heard in a long time and I think it's the beginning of a health revolution that will finally promote health through wholesome foods EVEN AT THE HOSPITALS!
The article can be found here. .. and here are some excerpts:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Shepherd is one of many hospitals across the nation offering food that's healthier for patients, workers and the environment.
This is the best news I've heard in a long time and I think it's the beginning of a health revolution that will finally promote health through wholesome foods EVEN AT THE HOSPITALS!
The article can be found here. .. and here are some excerpts:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Shepherd is one of many hospitals across the nation offering food that's healthier for patients, workers and the environment.
"What we are trying to do is provide not just our patients, but everybody that eats here, with foods that are health promoting," said Nancy Gummer, director of nutrition services at Good Shepherd.
The hospital no longer needs to modify each meal for a patient's sodium or fat restrictions. Instead it serves healthy food to everyone. In just one year, Gummer has been able to rid the hospital of all trans fats and major additives.
Our bodies are "bombarded with this stuff all the time," Gummer said. "All our ingredients are actually food."
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Excellent resource for information about toxic products
With this one link to Environmental Working Group's site, you can arm yourself with TONS of information about what products you use every day are safe and which ones are TOXIC.
I have started checking many of the products I have relied on in their database and will be starting to move toward the safer alternatives.
I have started checking many of the products I have relied on in their database and will be starting to move toward the safer alternatives.
Yet another EXCELLENT book
I received my copy of The Hundred Year Lie by Randall Fitzgerald today and sat down to read it immediately.
I am BLOWN away by what I have read so far. If you buy any book this year to augment any kind of health strategy you must buy this one to start with. It will frighten you, wake you up and prompt you to take control of your own body ecology and learn how to avoid the toxins we are all assaulted with on a daily basis - at least what we can control.
We have been sold a stack of LIES by many who control our environment, the food we eat, the drugs we take and the chemicals we use in household products and it is time to put an end to the scam. Knowledge is power.
I am BLOWN away by what I have read so far. If you buy any book this year to augment any kind of health strategy you must buy this one to start with. It will frighten you, wake you up and prompt you to take control of your own body ecology and learn how to avoid the toxins we are all assaulted with on a daily basis - at least what we can control.
We have been sold a stack of LIES by many who control our environment, the food we eat, the drugs we take and the chemicals we use in household products and it is time to put an end to the scam. Knowledge is power.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Excellent Book!
Just got this book from Amazon and it is highly recommended for anyone dealing with cancer. A MUST read!
Killing Cancer by Sir Jason Winters
It chronicles his own experience battling cancer and the negative forces in conventional medicine who gave up on him. He is still alive and well over 20 years after having "terminal" cancer and running away from the barbaric treatments that were being proposed.
Killing Cancer by Sir Jason Winters
It chronicles his own experience battling cancer and the negative forces in conventional medicine who gave up on him. He is still alive and well over 20 years after having "terminal" cancer and running away from the barbaric treatments that were being proposed.
More on chemicals we ingest that harm us
From this article posted today on NewsTarget
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dutch research cited by WWF-UK (World Wildlife Fund) indicates that low levels of chemicals from the environment or food packaging can be present in foods in low levels. Some scientists believe that even low levels of such chemicals can accumulate in the body and cause health problems.
The Dutch scientists found low levels of flame retardants, pesticides, artificial fragrances, non-stick chemicals and phthalate chemicals from plastics in foods. Research conducted at the London School of Pharmacy suggests that even low doses of such chemicals can combine over time to produce serious medical conditions.
Some inspirational links
After much ranting recently in my posts here, it's time for some positive stories that can give hope to all cancer patients. I also want to include a link on a technology used by my new family doctor at Narberth Family Medicine and it is called the PAPIMI. I am trying treatments with this device in addition to what I am already doing and my Dad will be using it to treat his severe sciatic pain next week so look for updates on the PAPIMI results for him later next week.
World's Longest Living Mesothelioma Survivor from NewsTarget
Information on PAPIMI
Blackberry extract blocks spread of cancer cells from NewsTarget
The Japanese Way of Health
World's Longest Living Mesothelioma Survivor from NewsTarget
Information on PAPIMI
Blackberry extract blocks spread of cancer cells from NewsTarget
The Japanese Way of Health
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Perspective on the Spinach E Coli Contamination
It's a shame our agriculture system is not doing very well to protect consumers from contamination. The E. Coli thing is going to scare lots of people away from eating raw vegetables unnecessarily.. meanwhile the food you get in the frozen section of your grocery store carries more ominous threats to the health of a larger number of people over a longer time - but we hear nothing about that in the press.
Here is Mike Adams' take on the issue and I agree 100%.
http://www.newstarget.com/020478.html
Excerpt:
Here is Mike Adams' take on the issue and I agree 100%.
http://www.newstarget.com/020478.html
Excerpt:
While noting the strain of E. coli is dangerous, consumer advocate Mike Adams says the real story is that the FDA is using fear tactics to scare people away from healthy spinach while ignoring the millions of people harmed by food ingredients such as hydrogenated oils (trans fats), high fructose corn syrup, MSG, sodium nitrite, and a host of other chemicals.
"There's a clear double standard here in warning the public about dangerous foods," Adams said. "The FDA only seems interested in warning the public about the dangers of fresh produce, but never the dangers of processed foods containing harmful chemical additives."
Just say NO to Non-Stick ANYTHING
I have given up microwaving and cooking in teflon pans because I suspected it was toxic and found some information that it was potentially toxic to cook with teflon but now I find this information here at this link - here are some excerpts - and funny how this was apparently downplayed in the media because I don't remember hearing much about it in late 2005:
--------------------------------------------------------------
November, 2005
This article is a very good explanation of the C8 coverup by DuPont:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1325178&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Excerpts from the above article:
Excerpt:
Breast Cancer ● Scientists of the Environmental Working Group (2005) have calculated from statistically significant studies in mice and human PFOA blood levels that the majority of the female population is above the 1 in 100,000 risk for mammary tumors. • More than 10 percent of all women exceed a 1 in 1000 excess lifetime cancer risk from their exposures to PFOA, and nearly 7 percent of all women exceed a safe dose for ovarian effects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another excellent link on this topic from EWG:
http://www.ewg.org/issues/siteindex/issues.php?issueid=5014
--------------------------------------------------------------
November, 2005
A former engineer for the DuPont company has accused his ex-employer of concealing test results almost two decades ago that showed toxic chemicals leaching out of a paper coating used to give grease resistance to microwave popcorn bags, fast food and candy wrappers, and pizza box liners.
The statements Wednesday by chemical engineer Glenn Evers come a week before the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce what fines it will levy against DuPont for withholding information about tests involving a similar chemical used in making non-stick coatings.
When ingested, these chemicals break down into perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical that an EPA expert panel this year found to be a likely human carcinogen. PFOA has been found in the blood of more than 95% of Americans, several studies have shown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The corporate giant DuPont is in a sticky situation over a chemical used to make the nonstick material Teflon, one of its top selling products. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the company failed to disclose what it knew about the potential health effects of the chemical, known as C8 or PFOA. DuPont knew the chemical was getting into water supplies near one of its facilities, knew that it was in the blood of workers, and knew it was toxic to animals in studies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We often remember DDT, we remember PCBs, we remember the dioxin chemicals. Well, these fluorochemicals are more persistent than all of those, much more persistent than those. As far as we can tell, their half-lives are in thousands of years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1981 – now, this one upsets me more than anything – in 1981 DuPont found C8 in the umbilical cord blood of a baby born to one plant worker and in the blood of a second baby born to another worker. Two more workers gave birth to babies with birth defects. DuPont reassigned 50 women from the plant but the EPA was not told.
-----------------------------------------------
In 2000, 3M quit making and using C8 out of concerns about its persistence and potential health effects. DuPont continues to use it, and now manufactures the chemical at a new facility in North Carolina where the chemical is again showing up in trace amounts in surrounding water. The company says it will reduce C8 emissions, but some company watchdogs say that's not enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The real risk to most consumers is from your pants, it's from pancake griddles, it's from your carpet, it's from an array of consumer products in which these materials are being utilized.
(sic: ScotchGuard and other stain resistance products have this chemical)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is a very good explanation of the C8 coverup by DuPont:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1325178&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Excerpts from the above article:
The chemical is widely used in the paper wrapping for fast foods such as french fries and pizza, as well as candy wrappers, microwave popcorn bags and other products. It helps to prevent grease stains from coming through the wrapper.
"You don't see it, you don't feel it, you can't taste it," Evers says. "But when you open that bag … and you start dipping your French fries in there, you are extracting fluorchemical … and you're eating it."
Once in the body, the chemical — zonyl — can break down into a chemical called PFOA. PFOA stays in the blood, a fact that was unknown when zonyl was first approved for use. The government says PFOA is now believed to be in the blood of nearly every American.
"It bioaccumulates, which means the chemical goes into the blood, and it stays there for a very long period of time," says Evers.
Studies have linked PFOA to cancer, organ damage and other health effects in tests on laboratory animals. The Environmental Protection Agency currently is considering its safety in humans.
For a very thorough look at the chemical C-8 otherwise also known as Zonyl see this linkExcerpt:
Breast Cancer ● Scientists of the Environmental Working Group (2005) have calculated from statistically significant studies in mice and human PFOA blood levels that the majority of the female population is above the 1 in 100,000 risk for mammary tumors. • More than 10 percent of all women exceed a 1 in 1000 excess lifetime cancer risk from their exposures to PFOA, and nearly 7 percent of all women exceed a safe dose for ovarian effects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another excellent link on this topic from EWG:
http://www.ewg.org/issues/siteindex/issues.php?issueid=5014
More evidence of the Big Coverup on Cancer
This is from 2002 and I am sure the skewing of statistics by the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society is still going on today to make it look like we are winning the proverbial War on Cancer with their barbaric and toxic "treatments".
From this article, here is an excerpt:
From this article, here is an excerpt:
For years, optimistic messages coming from the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society had implied that after decades and billions of dollars we were winning the war on cancer.
Mortality rates were on the way down because of better treatment, and even incidence rates appeared to be leveling off, meaning that fewer people were developing cancer than expected from past patterns. But this new analysis by Clegg et al. reveals that for several of the most common cancers the incidence statistics are far less rosy.
Incidence rates are still rising, not falling, and the trends for several cancers are alarming. Thus while fewer people are dying, more people are having their lives profoundly disrupted by cancer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Abraham Cherrix improving on Immunotherapy
You may recall the battle I mentioned earlier regarding Abraham Cherrix, the 16 year old who refused further chemotherapy for his lymphoma and ended up with his parents being charged with neglect and having to go to court to fight Child "Protective" Services who wanted to FORCE him to continue chemotherapy. Well here is the latest on his IMPROVING condition while using the doctor in Mississippi who uses immunotherapy. This doctor is the "court approved" doctor as a result of a settlement and many predicted he would suffer for having turned away from conventional medicine. I am SO happy to see him improving by the simple means of improving his immune system. This doctor also uses restrained radiotherapy but only after building up the immune system which conventional medicine just doesn't GET. Hooray for doctors who get it.
Monday, September 18, 2006
What is Hydrazine Sulfate and why does conventional medicine attack it?
This is a very interesting read at this link from the creator and researcher on Hydrazine Sulfate, Dr Joseph Gold, M.D., with full documentation of the resistance to accept what it can do for cancer patients.
Joseph Gold, M.D., is director of the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute and the developer of hydrazine sulfate as an anticancer drug.
Here is an excerpt:
The purpose of this statement is to guide you, step by step, through the scientific development of hydrazine sulfate as an anticancer agent, the clinical trials—and the high-level negative politics which came to surround this drug from the very beginning. It will be plainly seen that the cautions against this drug presented on the Internet by our highest federal health agencies are but an assemblage of misinformation and disinformation which acts to discourage this drug's use both by individual patients as well as by well-meaning physicians.
Given the extreme inexpense of HS, oncologists are not going to make “the majority of their practice revenue,” buying HS at such low prices and reselling it to patients, insurers and government programs, no matter how high the mark-ups. HS thus represents a formidable economic challenge to oncologists, for cancer doctors and those who administrate and direct our cancer programs are well aware that this drug's routine use may significantly reduce not only oncology funding and practice income but may also threaten the fiscal machinery of cancer centers, cancer hospitals, cancer treatment, cancer care, cancer research, cancer administration and cancer pharmaceuticals.
More info on Hydrazine Sulfate from Dr. Joseph Gold
A Canadian web site with very detailed information on Hydrazine Sulfate
Looking at the list of foods to avoid while taking this makes me realize it really is more for people who are suffering from cancer that is ravaging their body - to reverse the wasting of muscles etc. I am not anywhere close to that so for now, this information will be stored away.
Oh and I found this site from the UK which is an interesting total opposite view of Hydrazine Sulfate...
You have to wonder who got it listed as "toxic" and "carcinogenic" on this site.. hmmmm
I am finding all those articles Dr Gold mentions are attacking Hydrazine Sulfate and it amazes me that they continue to cite a SINGLE case of a patient *supposedly* taking HS and suffering frm fatal kidney failure YET EVERY DAY patients are dying from conventional chemotherapy drugs. What a con job!!!
Joseph Gold, M.D., is director of the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute and the developer of hydrazine sulfate as an anticancer drug.
Here is an excerpt:
The purpose of this statement is to guide you, step by step, through the scientific development of hydrazine sulfate as an anticancer agent, the clinical trials—and the high-level negative politics which came to surround this drug from the very beginning. It will be plainly seen that the cautions against this drug presented on the Internet by our highest federal health agencies are but an assemblage of misinformation and disinformation which acts to discourage this drug's use both by individual patients as well as by well-meaning physicians.
Scientific Background. Hydrazine sulfate (HS), an inexpensive, mass-produced chemical compound used for many industrial applications, was first proposed as an anticachexia agent based on its inhibition of the gluconeogenic enzyme, phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PEP CK).1,2 It was further proposed that if tumor energy (ATP) gain and host energy loss (resulting from cancer-induced excessive gluconeogenesis) were functionally interrelated—as seemed probable—HS could also, by indirect and non-toxic means, inhibit tumor growth itself.3 Early in-vivo studies demonstrated that HS could inhibit weight loss (cachexia) and tumor growth in a variety of transplanted mouse and rat models, without direct cytotoxicity,2-6 could add to the antitumor effects of chemotherapy drugs,7-9 and was free of significant side effects.10 These results strongly suggested HS as a new means of non-toxic cancer chemotherapy.11,12
Academe Joins In . What could not be done to eliminate HS by official intimidation, by rigged clinical trials, by GAO complicity with the NCI, by one-sided PCAC (FDA) action, our cancer leadership sought to accomplish by enlisting what can only be termed the academic whoredom of one of this nation's premiere medical journals.
To understand the moral turpitude of the Annals' action, it is necessary to know that—in contrast to the single, reported, presumptive case of fatal HS toxicity (in the drug's 30 years of use)—there are tens of thousands of authenticated chemotherapy fatalities, deaths from chemotherapy drugs, in this country each year . Has the Annals, or other medical journals, or our federal health agencies, or the prominent private-sector cancer agencies ever let the public know this?Given the extreme inexpense of HS, oncologists are not going to make “the majority of their practice revenue,” buying HS at such low prices and reselling it to patients, insurers and government programs, no matter how high the mark-ups. HS thus represents a formidable economic challenge to oncologists, for cancer doctors and those who administrate and direct our cancer programs are well aware that this drug's routine use may significantly reduce not only oncology funding and practice income but may also threaten the fiscal machinery of cancer centers, cancer hospitals, cancer treatment, cancer care, cancer research, cancer administration and cancer pharmaceuticals.
The Toll. More than 1.2 million new cases of cancer are reported in the U.S. each year; more than 600,000 Americans die from this disease annually. The Petrov (Russian) data, corroborated by the Harbor-UCLA data,32,78 indicate that of every million late stage cancer patients treated with HS, more than half a million would receive measurable symptomatic improvement, 400,000 would have their tumors cease growing or regress, and some would go on to long term survival.
If these data are correct—as seems likely—the human toll, in terms of needless suffering and/or premature death, because of a lack of access to HS therapy, has been 5 million persons in the last 10 years in the U.S. alone, many more worldwide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More info on Hydrazine Sulfate from Dr. Joseph Gold
A Canadian web site with very detailed information on Hydrazine Sulfate
Looking at the list of foods to avoid while taking this makes me realize it really is more for people who are suffering from cancer that is ravaging their body - to reverse the wasting of muscles etc. I am not anywhere close to that so for now, this information will be stored away.
Oh and I found this site from the UK which is an interesting total opposite view of Hydrazine Sulfate...
You have to wonder who got it listed as "toxic" and "carcinogenic" on this site.. hmmmm
I am finding all those articles Dr Gold mentions are attacking Hydrazine Sulfate and it amazes me that they continue to cite a SINGLE case of a patient *supposedly* taking HS and suffering frm fatal kidney failure YET EVERY DAY patients are dying from conventional chemotherapy drugs. What a con job!!!
Chemotherapy and why not to have it
From a book by Ralph Moss, MD called Questioning Chemotherapy I give you this description of the book:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Nuff said...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Cance r 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nuff said...
What a beautiful day to NOT have surgery
So today would have been my lumpectomy. I am so happy to be sitting here in full health and energy writing this instead of recuperating from a surgical procedure - albeit it is billed as an "outpatient" surgery - it is still ripping something out of my body unnaturally and thus my body needs to respond to this insult and recover. It's just a tad more than removing a splinter I'd say.
So I wanted to post here very clearly that my health is superb. Yes, I have a 16mm lump in my right breast but it does not affect my health. My nutrition plan that is dramatically different from my old eating habits is responsible for my optimal health today. People who know I have breast cancer and don't see me for a while often ask in a sad voice "how are you feeling". Well if I were the typical breast cancer patient, there would be indeed lots of days I would not be feeling well but not from the cancer, from the TREATMENT. I might even be bald for a bit of time but not from the cancer.... from the TREATMENT.
Since I have not gone down that path, my health has only IMPROVED with the way I am eating now. I fully expect this improvement to rid my body of the 16 mm lump although it won't be the quick fix method that conventional medicine wants to use on me. The quick fix gets rid of it for sure.. but it always comes back later in another spot. My method is slow and results are not dramatic when you are only monitoring a lump. Soon I will have some standard blood tests done that will prove my health has improved as well.
And I can tell you that I know my health is the best it has ever been... and I mean ever. I used to drink 2-3 cups of coffee in the morning and I really thought I NEEDED it. I wanted to stop but I couldn't and didn't think I could function without it. I drank caffeinated drinks to play volleyball.. again.. I thought I needed them. I no longer drink coffee or any caffeinated drinks and I don't get tired. I don't have dips in my energy. I just have a constant energy all day. I will occasionally drink a cup of coffee made in my French Press with some Stevia and soy milk creamer but it is only for a once in a while treat - and that becomes less and less a choice for a treat.
I will say that I noticed a period of fatigue after the PEM scan last week - it lasted about 2 days. The weird effects with my tongue from the radiation injection for the PEM scan were gone by Sunday and now I feel I am back to full health once again.
I also would like to share this link with any of you reading this blog. It is yet another book exposing the big LIE we have been fed by the people we thought were looking out for us. It turns out they were all looking out for their own profits at the expense of our health in the end.
We are all unwitting victims of the toxic environment we have allowed to happen and it's time we take back our health and our environment from those who are not protecting us.
So I wanted to post here very clearly that my health is superb. Yes, I have a 16mm lump in my right breast but it does not affect my health. My nutrition plan that is dramatically different from my old eating habits is responsible for my optimal health today. People who know I have breast cancer and don't see me for a while often ask in a sad voice "how are you feeling". Well if I were the typical breast cancer patient, there would be indeed lots of days I would not be feeling well but not from the cancer, from the TREATMENT. I might even be bald for a bit of time but not from the cancer.... from the TREATMENT.
Since I have not gone down that path, my health has only IMPROVED with the way I am eating now. I fully expect this improvement to rid my body of the 16 mm lump although it won't be the quick fix method that conventional medicine wants to use on me. The quick fix gets rid of it for sure.. but it always comes back later in another spot. My method is slow and results are not dramatic when you are only monitoring a lump. Soon I will have some standard blood tests done that will prove my health has improved as well.
And I can tell you that I know my health is the best it has ever been... and I mean ever. I used to drink 2-3 cups of coffee in the morning and I really thought I NEEDED it. I wanted to stop but I couldn't and didn't think I could function without it. I drank caffeinated drinks to play volleyball.. again.. I thought I needed them. I no longer drink coffee or any caffeinated drinks and I don't get tired. I don't have dips in my energy. I just have a constant energy all day. I will occasionally drink a cup of coffee made in my French Press with some Stevia and soy milk creamer but it is only for a once in a while treat - and that becomes less and less a choice for a treat.
I will say that I noticed a period of fatigue after the PEM scan last week - it lasted about 2 days. The weird effects with my tongue from the radiation injection for the PEM scan were gone by Sunday and now I feel I am back to full health once again.
I also would like to share this link with any of you reading this blog. It is yet another book exposing the big LIE we have been fed by the people we thought were looking out for us. It turns out they were all looking out for their own profits at the expense of our health in the end.
We are all unwitting victims of the toxic environment we have allowed to happen and it's time we take back our health and our environment from those who are not protecting us.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Surgery canceled for Monday
Just wanted to note that I have canceled the lumpectomy that was scheduled for Monday. I believe the diet and lifestyle changes I have made will be more than enough to get rid of this cancer. I also believe the Artemix will do good things since its activity is one of a natural targeted chemotherapy. I will continue to monitor the tumor with various non-invasive tests. The next test I will get will be perhaps the end of September when I will get an MRI at the same place as my first MRI. Around that same time I will get another AMAS blood test and if I discover any other new tests I will consider those as well.
I also plan to get a new CBC blood test early next week. I already have the prescription. It will just show my progress toward lowering the two elevated levels that had been persistent on my two prior blood tests - bilirubin and cholesterol. I fully expect those numbers to have come way down and no longer be elevated. They were both elevated on the blood test from 2002 and 2005 so there was definitely an upward trend until then.
I also plan to get a new CBC blood test early next week. I already have the prescription. It will just show my progress toward lowering the two elevated levels that had been persistent on my two prior blood tests - bilirubin and cholesterol. I fully expect those numbers to have come way down and no longer be elevated. They were both elevated on the blood test from 2002 and 2005 so there was definitely an upward trend until then.
PEM Test Results and Description
I received the PEM Flex test on Wednesday of this week and the results were pretty much what I expected. However it is very good to actually see with such clarity, the metabolic activity of the cancer cells in the tumor.
The procedure involves injection with a radioactive sugar and I will describe it in detail in this post for any who are interested. The tumor cells along with some other area of your body will absorb that radioactive sugar at a much higher rate than the other cells in your body. So this allows them to take a picture of the tumor which now glows from the radioactive sugar. The area that shows up shows the extent of the cancer "activity" so if the tumor is still there but all the cancer cells are dead, no sugar takeup would occur. Thus this is very good test to monitor the progress or regression of a cancer.
This PEM image is from the top looking down on the tumor:
In my case it showed an area estimated to be about 15mm - the doctor was more conservative and said 18mm - but I saw the borders of the glowing area measured to be 15mm on the screen. What this tells me is that the second MRI I had done was way off on the measurement which they gave as 27mm. This way off measurement served to panic my doctors and briefly, me as well, when it seemed it had grown so much in 6 weeks. But now we can see for sure that this is not the case. I could tell that by simply *looking* at the MRI pictures, which apparently the second MRI doctor had not done, even though I provided him the cd's from the earlier MRI for comparison. This is what really IRRITATES me about conventional medicine. They don't WANT to see good news. They see only worsening cancer unless of course you get their "treatment" and then they start to see improvements - but only if THEY effect the changes.
The next image is from the inside view from the left:
To further illustrate this annoyance, the doctor interpreting my PEM scan delivered the information with the typical cancer scare tactics. And I quote. "THIS is CANCER. Cancer only gets bigger" She further went on to try to find out what kind of treatment I will get and how soon. When I told her.. no conventional treatment has been chosen.. she gave me a look as if to say "are you nuts". Time and time again I have to withstand the overwhelming opinions of doctors who see only one way to treat cancer and this is to the exclusion of many other viable and proven methods! For many people, they might succeed in wearing down the patient unti they finally give in to the pressure from family, friends and well-meaning, but uninformed doctors and get the conventional treatment. But I am not like many people and their attempts to coerce me only strengthens my resolve to follow my own path and not take the toxic treatments that they think are so effective.
I also would like to mention that although they tout the PEM Flex test and also PET scans as having no side effects from being injected with radioactive sugar, this is not the case. The side effects are real and not enough to prevent me from using PEM scan for monitoring this cancer. However, I would not get one more than twice a year at the most.
The side effects I experienced from the radioactive injection included fatigue for 24-48 hours after the test. I have not been fatigued since I went on this new diet and cut out the junk food. I have had boundless energy. However, I was noticeably fatigued after the test and instead of playing volleyball after it, I took a nap. This is not like me. I also experienced some minor ulceration on my tongue and some tongue swelling like you would get if you had a food allergy or some other food reaction. My tongue is still sort of thick today - more than 48 hours later and the ulceration is not quite gone. It did not cause me much trouble. But these are definite side effects that I beleive the supporters of PET scans and PEM scans would not like you to know about.
Here is what to expect if you go for a PEM test. I went to Bucks County Advanced Imaging and it is a brand new facility. It is located in Bensalem. The staff is very friendly and the facility is quite modern and very clean. Before the test I needed to refrain from eating carbs or sugar for at least 12 hours before the test and not engage in any exercise or exertion 12 hours before the test. I was to drink only water after midnight and have no other food after midnight. My test was at 11am so I probably could have gone till 2am with that because as a result I did not eat for close to 24 hours - just because of the timing of my schedule etc.
They take you in to a sitting room and test your blood sugar to make sure you don't have a high blood sugar which would make it less likely the tumor will take up the radioactive sugar. Then they inject you with the radioactive sugar and you are left there to either watch TV or rest of about 45 minutes. They don't want you to even read because they want the tumor cells to get all that radioactive sugar. If you exert your muscles, some is diverted to those muscles.
After the 45 minutes you are taken to the PEM Flex scanner. It looks like a portable mammogram machine with two plates on a rolling base and a computer is next to it. They compress the plates over each breast one at a time, but the compression is not as much as is given for a mammogram. It only serves to immobilize the breast and the scan takes about 10 minutes for each breast. There are a total of 2 views taken of each breast and one of the axillary lymph nodes on the side with the lump so all tests last about 55 minutes.
Right after the test you are able to view the images and receive the doctor's interpretation of the results. This is good to be able to see the results so quickly. However, they don't provide a cd for you to view the images yourself at home. This would be a nice improvement. I asked for some printouts which they gave to me.
What this test shows is the "activity" of the cancer cells. If there are no cancer cells there, there is no glow. Thus they were able to rule out cancer cells in the axillary lymph nodes, which makes me feel good about thinking I didn't need the sentinel lymph node biopsy to tell me the exact same thing. It's unbelievable that so many women buy into this procedure and so many surgeons feel it is just fine to remove lymph nodes just to CHECK for cancer. Meanwhile there is a test such as the PEM Flex or even a regular PET scan that could provide that information WITHOUT removing any lymph nodes!
The procedure involves injection with a radioactive sugar and I will describe it in detail in this post for any who are interested. The tumor cells along with some other area of your body will absorb that radioactive sugar at a much higher rate than the other cells in your body. So this allows them to take a picture of the tumor which now glows from the radioactive sugar. The area that shows up shows the extent of the cancer "activity" so if the tumor is still there but all the cancer cells are dead, no sugar takeup would occur. Thus this is very good test to monitor the progress or regression of a cancer.
This PEM image is from the top looking down on the tumor:
In my case it showed an area estimated to be about 15mm - the doctor was more conservative and said 18mm - but I saw the borders of the glowing area measured to be 15mm on the screen. What this tells me is that the second MRI I had done was way off on the measurement which they gave as 27mm. This way off measurement served to panic my doctors and briefly, me as well, when it seemed it had grown so much in 6 weeks. But now we can see for sure that this is not the case. I could tell that by simply *looking* at the MRI pictures, which apparently the second MRI doctor had not done, even though I provided him the cd's from the earlier MRI for comparison. This is what really IRRITATES me about conventional medicine. They don't WANT to see good news. They see only worsening cancer unless of course you get their "treatment" and then they start to see improvements - but only if THEY effect the changes.
The next image is from the inside view from the left:
To further illustrate this annoyance, the doctor interpreting my PEM scan delivered the information with the typical cancer scare tactics. And I quote. "THIS is CANCER. Cancer only gets bigger" She further went on to try to find out what kind of treatment I will get and how soon. When I told her.. no conventional treatment has been chosen.. she gave me a look as if to say "are you nuts". Time and time again I have to withstand the overwhelming opinions of doctors who see only one way to treat cancer and this is to the exclusion of many other viable and proven methods! For many people, they might succeed in wearing down the patient unti they finally give in to the pressure from family, friends and well-meaning, but uninformed doctors and get the conventional treatment. But I am not like many people and their attempts to coerce me only strengthens my resolve to follow my own path and not take the toxic treatments that they think are so effective.
I also would like to mention that although they tout the PEM Flex test and also PET scans as having no side effects from being injected with radioactive sugar, this is not the case. The side effects are real and not enough to prevent me from using PEM scan for monitoring this cancer. However, I would not get one more than twice a year at the most.
The side effects I experienced from the radioactive injection included fatigue for 24-48 hours after the test. I have not been fatigued since I went on this new diet and cut out the junk food. I have had boundless energy. However, I was noticeably fatigued after the test and instead of playing volleyball after it, I took a nap. This is not like me. I also experienced some minor ulceration on my tongue and some tongue swelling like you would get if you had a food allergy or some other food reaction. My tongue is still sort of thick today - more than 48 hours later and the ulceration is not quite gone. It did not cause me much trouble. But these are definite side effects that I beleive the supporters of PET scans and PEM scans would not like you to know about.
Here is what to expect if you go for a PEM test. I went to Bucks County Advanced Imaging and it is a brand new facility. It is located in Bensalem. The staff is very friendly and the facility is quite modern and very clean. Before the test I needed to refrain from eating carbs or sugar for at least 12 hours before the test and not engage in any exercise or exertion 12 hours before the test. I was to drink only water after midnight and have no other food after midnight. My test was at 11am so I probably could have gone till 2am with that because as a result I did not eat for close to 24 hours - just because of the timing of my schedule etc.
They take you in to a sitting room and test your blood sugar to make sure you don't have a high blood sugar which would make it less likely the tumor will take up the radioactive sugar. Then they inject you with the radioactive sugar and you are left there to either watch TV or rest of about 45 minutes. They don't want you to even read because they want the tumor cells to get all that radioactive sugar. If you exert your muscles, some is diverted to those muscles.
After the 45 minutes you are taken to the PEM Flex scanner. It looks like a portable mammogram machine with two plates on a rolling base and a computer is next to it. They compress the plates over each breast one at a time, but the compression is not as much as is given for a mammogram. It only serves to immobilize the breast and the scan takes about 10 minutes for each breast. There are a total of 2 views taken of each breast and one of the axillary lymph nodes on the side with the lump so all tests last about 55 minutes.
Right after the test you are able to view the images and receive the doctor's interpretation of the results. This is good to be able to see the results so quickly. However, they don't provide a cd for you to view the images yourself at home. This would be a nice improvement. I asked for some printouts which they gave to me.
What this test shows is the "activity" of the cancer cells. If there are no cancer cells there, there is no glow. Thus they were able to rule out cancer cells in the axillary lymph nodes, which makes me feel good about thinking I didn't need the sentinel lymph node biopsy to tell me the exact same thing. It's unbelievable that so many women buy into this procedure and so many surgeons feel it is just fine to remove lymph nodes just to CHECK for cancer. Meanwhile there is a test such as the PEM Flex or even a regular PET scan that could provide that information WITHOUT removing any lymph nodes!
Monday, September 11, 2006
This just in - Legal Case over HRT causing cancer
Please note a couple of important points about this article. One - you will notice that the lawyer for for Wyeth said ""We don't know what causes most people's breast cancer,"
And also please note that from this case we can see it is clear that doctors don't know the details about potential dangers of the drugs they hand out to patients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 11, 2006, 5:48PM
Lawyers Say Wyeth Drugs Promoted Cancer
By ANDREW DeMILLO Associated Press Writer© 2006 The Associated Press
LITTLE ROCK — Attorneys for a Benton woman told a federal jury Monday that Wyeth pharmaceutical's hormone-replacement drugs might not have triggered the woman's breast cancer, but they certainly promoted it.
Attorneys for 67-year-old Linda Reeves said in closing arguments that began the fourth week of the trial that Wyeth failed to warn Reeves and other users of Premarin and Prempro of breast cancer risks despite repeated indications discovered by researchers over the years.
During the trial, the New Jersey-based drug company said that it issued sufficient warnings about the drugs' risks and that it wasn't liable for Reeves' health. In testimony, Reeves acknowledged that she had not read patient-information sheets that accompanied the drugs.
Premarin is a form of estrogen; its sister drug, Prempro, is a combination of estrogen and progestin. The drugs are used to treat women going through menopause. Reeves used either Premarin or Prempro for more than eight years before she was diagnosed with cancer in 2000.
The case is the first of approximately 4,500 lawsuits filed against Wyeth over hormone replacement therapy. Both Premarin and Prempro remain on the market, although their combined sales dropped to $909 million last year from $2.07 billion 2001.
Lawyers Monday sent the case to the federal jury. Jurors begin deliberations Tuesday.
Wyeth lawyers told jurors that the benefits of Premarin and Prempro outweighed the risks and said the drug company had informed both Reeves and her doctor of the risks associated with the drugs.
Reeves' lawyer Rainey Booth told jurors that they wouldn't need to find that hormone-replacement therapy using Wyeth's drugs caused Reeves' cancer, which was diagnosed in 2000. Booth said jurors only need to agree that the cancer progressed because of the drugs.
"This is what these drugs do," Booth said. "They promote the seed that's there and they help it grow. ... You take away the water and sunshine, you take away the growth."
Another attorney for Reeves, Zoe Littlepage, said Wyeth did not act responsibly and ignored numerous warnings of Premarin and Prempro breast cancer risks. Littlepage said the company could have conducted its own long-term study of the risks as early as 1983; she also showed the drugs' label over the years and alleged the company downplayed the breast cancer risk before 2005.
"The fact that the labels were so confusing and so wishy-washy before 2005 is because the proper studies weren't done," Littlepage said.
Plenty of research was available, she said.
"This is not that we found just one memo saying this. Wyeth was repeatedly being told there are some breast cancer issues that need to be resolved," she said.
Littlepage told jurors that if they do find in Reeves' favor they would need to look at damages for medical expenses, pain, mental anguish, and suffering and scars and disfigurement.
Littlepage described Reeves' breast cancer while she displayed a photo to jurors of Reeves and her husband Ross standing in front of a Christmas tree.
"She will never look at herself naked in the mirror the same way again," Littlepage said.
Littlepage later told jurors that Wyeth minimized the risks of Premarin and Prempro in its labels so doctors would continue prescribing the drugs.
"It's the fine print defense," Littlepage said.
Wyeth attorney Jane Bockus said the drug at the time was the most effective treatment for Reeves.
"There was nothing else on the market that was as valuable for the prevention of osteoporosis," Bockus said. "There was no other drug on the market."
Bockus noted that the drug's labeling in 1991 and 1996 did mention a potential risk of breast cancer.
"Clearly the labeling contained adequate information for Dr. (David) Caldwell and Mrs. Reeves to decide whether Premarin and later whether Prempro was right for her," Bockus said, referring to the plaintiff and her doctor.
Bockus also noticed that none of Reeves' physicians testified during the trial that hormone therapy contributed in any way to Reeves' breast cancer.
"We don't know what causes most people's breast cancer," Bockus said.
Wyeth attorney Stephen Urbanczyk accused Reeves' attorneys of taking portions of memos from the company out of context and trying to mislead jurors.
Urbanczyk and Bockus both noted that Caldwell said during testimony that the breast cancer risk of Prempro was "not that high" and noted that he still prescribes the drug to patients.
In court documents filed last month, Wyeth said its Visitors Speakers Bureau records showed that Caldwell was scheduled to speak to other doctors on the company's behalf five times but actually did so only twice. It said Caldwell had been prescribing hormone therapy for more than 20 years and was only "preaching what he practiced."
"This is a natural hormone product. It's what makes women women," Urbanczyk said. "This is not a defective product."
Updated information on Artemisinin
Found this in an article regarding olive leaf extract as treatment for drug resistant TB which is a very interesting article in itself.. found at this link
Quoting from the article:
Artemisinin, a powerful Chinese herbal remedy which has been used for centuries, was largely ignored by the medical establishment until drug resistant malaria highlighted it as the most effective treatment available.
Nowadays the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends artemisinin as the primary treatment for drug resistant malaria. To date, no resistance to artemisinin has been reported, although the WHO is keeping a careful eye on the situation. Artemisinin is also showing promise in the treatment of cancer.
Quoting from the article:
Artemisinin, a powerful Chinese herbal remedy which has been used for centuries, was largely ignored by the medical establishment until drug resistant malaria highlighted it as the most effective treatment available.
Nowadays the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends artemisinin as the primary treatment for drug resistant malaria. To date, no resistance to artemisinin has been reported, although the WHO is keeping a careful eye on the situation. Artemisinin is also showing promise in the treatment of cancer.
PEM Flex and Radiation Exposure - still getting the test
I have received some further information that has helped me decide to go ahead with the PEM Flex test on Wednesday. Here is a very good link on radiation exposure and limits in the following link:
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/is_rad.htm
It turns out that airline pilots actually receive a fairly high dose of ionizing radiation and so do frequent flyers. I don't believe anyone realizes that airline flight even as a passenger, gives them a fairly good dose of ionizing radiation - but that level is deemed safe for the normal airline passenger. It seems the negative effects are more likely on the genes I pass on to offspring and since I don't think I will be doing that at this point, the DNA I damage is mine to keep.
So I have decided that one PEM Flex test is fine. The manufacturer is aiming to reduce the amount of radiation exposure for patients with the aim of allowing the PEM Flex test to replace the annual mammogram and I hope that they can achieve that since the PEM test is SO much more useful than mammograms.
I wanted to add this information, generously provided by the Naviscan PEM Flex manufacturer's Eastern Sales Director to me when I asked about radiation hazards:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements gives some examples of common radiation exposures.9,10,11 Members of the general population throughout the United States receive, on average:
• 1,300 millirem per year from smoking one (1) pack of cigarettes per day;
• 650 millirem per nuclear medicine examination of the brain;
• 405 millirem per barium enema;
• 245 millirem per upper gastrointestinal tract series;
• 150 millirem per nuclear medicine examination of the lung;
• 110 millirem per computerized tomography of the head and body;
• 7.5 millirem per year to spouses of recipients of certain cardiac pacemakers;
• 6 millirem per dental x-ray;
• 5 millirem per year from foods grown on lands in which phosphate fertilizers are used;
• 4 millirem per year from highway and road construction materials;
• 1 millirem from each cross-country airline trip;
• 1 to 6 millirem per year from domestic water supplies;
• 1 millirem per year from television receivers;
• 0.5 millirem from eating one-half pound of Brazil nuts;
• 0.3 millirem per year from combustible fuels, (i.e., coal, natural gas, and liquefied petroleum);
• 0.2 millirem from drinking a quart of Gatorade™ each week; and
• 0.1 millirem per year from sleeping with one’s spouse. (sic: hehehe - that's a good one!)
When all of the different types of background and medical radiation are considered, the average member of the U.S. population typically receives a radiation dose of about 360 millirem per year. The radiation dose potential for a hypothetical physician participating in the study using the PEM Flex Solo on a patient administered 10 mCi of 18FDG, is over 450 times lower than the dose associated with typical background radiation exposures received by average members of the U.S. population by virtue of being alive.
The concept of a given amount of radiation exposure producing a particular effect is no different from that which applies to the medical administration of drugs. Just as one aspirin is unlikely to harm a patient and 300 may very likely be lethal, so too will a large amount (dose) of radiation produce serious biological consequences, while a small amount has no discernible effect.
It is also essential to recognize the importance of the rate at which the radiation dose is delivered. To continue the preceding analogy, 300 aspirins swallowed in one day may kill the patient, but 300 aspirins taken over a period of one year is unlikely to cause any personal harm. The same concept applies to radiation exposures, such as that associated with performing a study with the PEM Flex Solo on a patient administered 18FDG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so what about the patient receiving the injection vs the physician or radiologist giving the test? That question is not really answered in the provided document although extrapolation can be made that having received the injection would be a higher dose of radiation than the physician who comes into contact with the patient. Stay tuned for the answer - if I can get it.
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/is_rad.htm
It turns out that airline pilots actually receive a fairly high dose of ionizing radiation and so do frequent flyers. I don't believe anyone realizes that airline flight even as a passenger, gives them a fairly good dose of ionizing radiation - but that level is deemed safe for the normal airline passenger. It seems the negative effects are more likely on the genes I pass on to offspring and since I don't think I will be doing that at this point, the DNA I damage is mine to keep.
So I have decided that one PEM Flex test is fine. The manufacturer is aiming to reduce the amount of radiation exposure for patients with the aim of allowing the PEM Flex test to replace the annual mammogram and I hope that they can achieve that since the PEM test is SO much more useful than mammograms.
I wanted to add this information, generously provided by the Naviscan PEM Flex manufacturer's Eastern Sales Director to me when I asked about radiation hazards:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements gives some examples of common radiation exposures.9,10,11 Members of the general population throughout the United States receive, on average:
• 1,300 millirem per year from smoking one (1) pack of cigarettes per day;
• 650 millirem per nuclear medicine examination of the brain;
• 405 millirem per barium enema;
• 245 millirem per upper gastrointestinal tract series;
• 150 millirem per nuclear medicine examination of the lung;
• 110 millirem per computerized tomography of the head and body;
• 7.5 millirem per year to spouses of recipients of certain cardiac pacemakers;
• 6 millirem per dental x-ray;
• 5 millirem per year from foods grown on lands in which phosphate fertilizers are used;
• 4 millirem per year from highway and road construction materials;
• 1 millirem from each cross-country airline trip;
• 1 to 6 millirem per year from domestic water supplies;
• 1 millirem per year from television receivers;
• 0.5 millirem from eating one-half pound of Brazil nuts;
• 0.3 millirem per year from combustible fuels, (i.e., coal, natural gas, and liquefied petroleum);
• 0.2 millirem from drinking a quart of Gatorade™ each week; and
• 0.1 millirem per year from sleeping with one’s spouse. (sic: hehehe - that's a good one!)
When all of the different types of background and medical radiation are considered, the average member of the U.S. population typically receives a radiation dose of about 360 millirem per year. The radiation dose potential for a hypothetical physician participating in the study using the PEM Flex Solo on a patient administered 10 mCi of 18FDG, is over 450 times lower than the dose associated with typical background radiation exposures received by average members of the U.S. population by virtue of being alive.
The concept of a given amount of radiation exposure producing a particular effect is no different from that which applies to the medical administration of drugs. Just as one aspirin is unlikely to harm a patient and 300 may very likely be lethal, so too will a large amount (dose) of radiation produce serious biological consequences, while a small amount has no discernible effect.
It is also essential to recognize the importance of the rate at which the radiation dose is delivered. To continue the preceding analogy, 300 aspirins swallowed in one day may kill the patient, but 300 aspirins taken over a period of one year is unlikely to cause any personal harm. The same concept applies to radiation exposures, such as that associated with performing a study with the PEM Flex Solo on a patient administered 18FDG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so what about the patient receiving the injection vs the physician or radiologist giving the test? That question is not really answered in the provided document although extrapolation can be made that having received the injection would be a higher dose of radiation than the physician who comes into contact with the patient. Stay tuned for the answer - if I can get it.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Second Thoughts on PEM Flex test
Well since I understand I will be injected with a radioactive isotope for this test - at least that is true for a regular PET scan - I wanted to do some research on how safe that was. So I found this reference to safety for the PET scan technicians:
So once I am injected with the isotope I could be a source of radioactive contamination? Hmmm I don't like that at all. I found another reference that said the exposure is equivalent to two chest x-rays. Well I don't really want any more x-rays period and this is why I don't want to do any more mammograms. This concerns me and I don't trust the facilities who give the test to tell me the truth. I really want to see the results of this test BUT is it really worth the risk of certain radiation exposure? They try to assure you that the isotope is "short-lived" but exposure is exposure.. period.
I even found a reference in the same article that says it is more dangerous to be a PET scan technician than a "medical radiologist" meaning the ones that dose people with radiation therapy.
How can a facility insure the safety of its staff as it implements a PET scanner? The same general principles of time, distance and shielding that apply in nuclear medicine are used but in a much more stringent manner. The difference is a matter of simple physics. The gamma emitters used for diagnostic nuclear medicine are actually fairly low-energy — 135 to 150-keV, which means there isn’t much exposure from the patient. PET, however, is a whole different ball of wax.
So that isn't so bad really.. is it? Just something about having something radioactive in my blood that could *expose* a PET technician to dangerous radiation doesn't sit well with me. Still searching...
This information is specific to PEM Flex procedures:
PEM involves the injection of the radiopharmaceutical FDG. A patient needs to fast for four hours before the procedure. Afterward, a serum blood sample is taken to determine blood glucose level. Then FDG is injected intravenously. Tumor cells will take up much more glucose than normal cells, and PEM imaging will reveal the FDG concentrations that suggest malignancy.
These are positron emitters used in PET for studying brain physiology and pathology, in particular for localising epileptic focus, and in dementia, psychiatry and neuropharmacology studies. They also have a significant role in cardiology. F-18 in FDG has become very important in detection of cancers and the monitoring of progress in their treatment, using PET.
Found this consent form regarding the use of PET scans in University Research which I find interesting:
More information that instead casts a positive light on the use of FDG for breast cancer TREATMENT!
Moadel et al. published the results of the FDG study in the August 22 issue of Breast Cancer Research (2003;5:R199–R205). The notion that the “workhorse” radiopharmaceutical of PET imaging may also provide therapeutic effects was both surprising and thought provoking
for many nuclear medicine specialists.
Moadel and her colleagues first determined radiotoxicity levels for FDG in healthy mice and then treated polyoma middle T antigen and mouse mammary tumor virus-NeuT mice and control mice with 2–4 mCi 18F-FDG. Tumors and control mammary glands were analyzed at 10 days after therapy.
The uptake in tumor showed an average tumor-to-liver ratio of 1.6 and resulted in apoptotic cell death in small tumors (0.15–0.17 cm). Cell death through the necrotic pathway was seen in large tumors (>1 cm) and was accompanied by tumor fragmentation and infiltration with leukocytes. Mammary tissues from the control mice were not damaged.
Appendix 3: Theories of Radiation Risk
The traditional linear no-threshold (LNT) model assumes that there is a linear relationship between radiation dose and risk. This means that even at very low doses, there is a deleterious effect. Linear-quadratic and quadratic models have also been proposed, but the LNT model assumes the worse outcome for low doses, and therefore provides the greatest protection. On these grounds, in 1960, the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the US National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) decided to adopt the LNT model. This model has been developed in ICRP Publication 26 (1977) and ICRP Publication 60 (1991).(9) The ICRP and NCRP have recently reiterated their belief that there is no safe radiation dose threshold.(127, 128)
Simple measures can minimize tech’s exposure time. Holbrook avers, “It’s important to reiterate that the patient is where the tech can receive the most exposure.” Classic agrees. She adds, “Let’s face it. The patients are most technologists’ primary source of exposure. Reducing time spent close to patients reduces dose on the basis of time and distance.”
In all hospitals, a radioisotope is carefully shielded before it is injected into a patient in order to prevent accidental exposure. Once the isotope is injected into the patient, it becomes an unshielded source of radiation. So a tech cannot opt to sit next to a patient for reassurance after injecting radioisotopes, or he or she will receive an undesirable exposure.
A typical PET scan requires anywhere from 30 minutes to 90 minutes of uptake time after injection. A tech can be potentially exposed during this span of time. The patient should be isolated in a shielded area during the uptake phase.
Nevertheless, a few sites designed their PET facility incorrectly and failed to account for technologists’ safety during the uptake phase. Jeff Clanton, DPH, director of radiopharmacy services and manager of the cyclotron facility for Vanderbilt University (Nashville, Tenn.), notes, “I’ve seen a few PET facilities that aren’t designed correctly. A PET site should have an isolated holding area for patients during the uptake phase. The holding area should be away from staff and other patients.”
So once I am injected with the isotope I could be a source of radioactive contamination? Hmmm I don't like that at all. I found another reference that said the exposure is equivalent to two chest x-rays. Well I don't really want any more x-rays period and this is why I don't want to do any more mammograms. This concerns me and I don't trust the facilities who give the test to tell me the truth. I really want to see the results of this test BUT is it really worth the risk of certain radiation exposure? They try to assure you that the isotope is "short-lived" but exposure is exposure.. period.
I even found a reference in the same article that says it is more dangerous to be a PET scan technician than a "medical radiologist" meaning the ones that dose people with radiation therapy.
How can a facility insure the safety of its staff as it implements a PET scanner? The same general principles of time, distance and shielding that apply in nuclear medicine are used but in a much more stringent manner. The difference is a matter of simple physics. The gamma emitters used for diagnostic nuclear medicine are actually fairly low-energy — 135 to 150-keV, which means there isn’t much exposure from the patient. PET, however, is a whole different ball of wax.
Mary Anne Dell, vice president of manufacturing and health physicist for Capintec, Inc. (Pittsburgh, Pa.), explains, “All PET isotopes, by definition, are positron emitters and have an energy of 511-keV.” The reality of high-energy emitters is that the radiation exposure coming from the patient is much higher for PET than nuclear medicine. Consequently, the room for error is smaller and some concerns that might be taken for granted in nuclear medicine cannot be overlooked in PET or the tech will be overexposed.
Ok I found this now - it seems air travel exposes us to radiation also:
One drawback for PET scans is that PET centers must be located near a particle accelerator device that produces the short-lived radioisotopes used in the technique. Another drawback, of course, is that the technique involves exposing people to radiation, though the level is only about as high as exposure due to taking a cross-country air flight.So that isn't so bad really.. is it? Just something about having something radioactive in my blood that could *expose* a PET technician to dangerous radiation doesn't sit well with me. Still searching...
This information is specific to PEM Flex procedures:
PEM involves the injection of the radiopharmaceutical FDG. A patient needs to fast for four hours before the procedure. Afterward, a serum blood sample is taken to determine blood glucose level. Then FDG is injected intravenously. Tumor cells will take up much more glucose than normal cells, and PEM imaging will reveal the FDG concentrations that suggest malignancy.
The imaging is acquired one hour after the FDG injection, when the patient’s body has had enough time to absorb the radiopharmaceutical. Images are obtained in a manner similar to mammography. Both breasts are imaged, with mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views taken. Each view takes approximately 10 minutes to accomplish; thus imaging requires roughly 40 to 45 minutes.
What is FDG?
Carbon-11, Nitrogen-13, Oxygen-15, Fluorine-18:These are positron emitters used in PET for studying brain physiology and pathology, in particular for localising epileptic focus, and in dementia, psychiatry and neuropharmacology studies. They also have a significant role in cardiology. F-18 in FDG has become very important in detection of cancers and the monitoring of progress in their treatment, using PET.
Found this consent form regarding the use of PET scans in University Research which I find interesting:
The consent form must include the following information:
- "I understand that FDG, the imaging material used in the PET scanning procedure is not burned up normally by the body, but in this study only very small doses will be administered, less than one-ten thousandths of the amount required to show any drug, behavior or mood effects. It will be passed in my urine within 48 hours after administration and most of it will be eliminated from my body in the first 7 hours."
- "Injection of the radioisotope (FDG) will expose me to a small dose of radiation, so that my risk of developing cancer in the future will be slightly increased."
- "If I have had a PET scan or been exposed to radiation while participating in other research during the past year, I will inform the investigator(s). This will enable the investigator(s) to assure that my total radiation exposure does not exceed accepted safety limits. If I participate in future studies that involve the use of x-rays or radioisotopes, I should discuss the safety limits of radiation exposure with the investigator who is performing the study."
More information that instead casts a positive light on the use of FDG for breast cancer TREATMENT!
Moadel et al. published the results of the FDG study in the August 22 issue of Breast Cancer Research (2003;5:R199–R205). The notion that the “workhorse” radiopharmaceutical of PET imaging may also provide therapeutic effects was both surprising and thought provoking
for many nuclear medicine specialists.
Moadel and her colleagues first determined radiotoxicity levels for FDG in healthy mice and then treated polyoma middle T antigen and mouse mammary tumor virus-NeuT mice and control mice with 2–4 mCi 18F-FDG. Tumors and control mammary glands were analyzed at 10 days after therapy.
The uptake in tumor showed an average tumor-to-liver ratio of 1.6 and resulted in apoptotic cell death in small tumors (0.15–0.17 cm). Cell death through the necrotic pathway was seen in large tumors (>1 cm) and was accompanied by tumor fragmentation and infiltration with leukocytes. Mammary tissues from the control mice were not damaged.
Another reference to consider:
Appendix 3: Theories of Radiation Risk
The traditional linear no-threshold (LNT) model assumes that there is a linear relationship between radiation dose and risk. This means that even at very low doses, there is a deleterious effect. Linear-quadratic and quadratic models have also been proposed, but the LNT model assumes the worse outcome for low doses, and therefore provides the greatest protection. On these grounds, in 1960, the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the US National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) decided to adopt the LNT model. This model has been developed in ICRP Publication 26 (1977) and ICRP Publication 60 (1991).(9) The ICRP and NCRP have recently reiterated their belief that there is no safe radiation dose threshold.(127, 128)
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Questions
Ok so this is great news - the "normal" results on the AMAS test. It is just one test but I am hoping the PEM test next week will support the AMAS test results. So if it does, it makes me think a couple of things:
Did I ever have a malignant tumor at all?
or
Are these test results showing that my diet and lifestyle changes made it regress?
The first biopsy suspected malignancy - but of course they wanted an "excisional biopsy" to "confirm" and that is what they call a lumpectomy. So these new tests I have found my be the confirmation needed WITHOUT surgery. What a concept! Why did it take me this long to find these tests and why didn't my doctors use them, prescribe them or tell me about them?
I feel like I am living in a third world country where medicine is not practicing with current information. Why am I, the patient, having to do all this research myself? What is wrong with our medical system?
So if anyone questions why I am so critical of conventional medicine, you have no further to look than this blog - a historical representation of medicine in the United States that falls very short of optimal.
Did I ever have a malignant tumor at all?
or
Are these test results showing that my diet and lifestyle changes made it regress?
The first biopsy suspected malignancy - but of course they wanted an "excisional biopsy" to "confirm" and that is what they call a lumpectomy. So these new tests I have found my be the confirmation needed WITHOUT surgery. What a concept! Why did it take me this long to find these tests and why didn't my doctors use them, prescribe them or tell me about them?
I feel like I am living in a third world country where medicine is not practicing with current information. Why am I, the patient, having to do all this research myself? What is wrong with our medical system?
So if anyone questions why I am so critical of conventional medicine, you have no further to look than this blog - a historical representation of medicine in the United States that falls very short of optimal.
AMAS Blood Test Results are back!
My AMAS Blood Test came back *NORMAL*.
Doing the happy dance! I believe that means there is no malignant cancer in my system so the breast tumor is either benign now and it wasn't before, benign now and it WAS benign before or it is just not malignant but still an entity to contend with. I will provide an update here as to what the AMAS test result means for someone with a known breast lump that is suspect by other means of testing.
Description from the Oncolab Site:
The AMAS test measures serum levels of AMA, an antibody found to be elevated in most patients with a wide range of active non-terminal malignancies.
AMA is the antibody to Malignin, a 10,000 Dalton polypeptide which has been found to be present in most malignant cells regardless of cell type or location (refs.1 to 8). Unlike tests such as CEA , which measure less well-defined antigens whose serum levels tend to be inconstant but elevated late in the disease, the AMAS test measures a well-defined antibody whose serum levels rise early in the course of the disease. In some cases, the AMAS test has been positive (elevated) early , i.e. 1 to 19 months before clinical detection.
All of the data, from both Bogoch et al. (ref.4) and from the independent study performed by SmithKline Laboratories(ref.6) support the fact that the AMA (Anti-Malignin Antibody) is elevated almost regardless of the site or cell type of the malignancy; that is, AMA is a general transformation antibody, not just for one particular kind of cancer. For sera shipped overnight, false positives are 5% and false negatives 7% (3,315 double-blind tests of patients and controls, refs.4, 6 and 8).
Anti-Malignin Antibody is elevated in 93-100% of cases in which active non-terminal malignancy is the clinico-pathological diagnosis; overall asymptomatic (’false’) positives are 5% in sera kept shipped overnight (refs.4-8). AMA is normal in 96% of cancer patients who no longer have evidence of disease (refs.4,6). Within-run, inter-technician-same-lab, and inter-lab variability are low, as reported in the Smith-Kline study(ref.6).
Every AMAS test is run under rigorous quality control. Control solutions containing known amounts ofstandard monoclonal AMA are run with each test. AMA, when produced in vivo as mouse (ref.3) or as human (ref.7) immunoglobulin, and when isolated from human serum (ref.7) is predominantly IgM. Target® reagent shelf life is as long as 7 years.
Doing the happy dance! I believe that means there is no malignant cancer in my system so the breast tumor is either benign now and it wasn't before, benign now and it WAS benign before or it is just not malignant but still an entity to contend with. I will provide an update here as to what the AMAS test result means for someone with a known breast lump that is suspect by other means of testing.
Description from the Oncolab Site:
The AMAS test measures serum levels of AMA, an antibody found to be elevated in most patients with a wide range of active non-terminal malignancies.
AMA is the antibody to Malignin, a 10,000 Dalton polypeptide which has been found to be present in most malignant cells regardless of cell type or location (refs.1 to 8). Unlike tests such as CEA , which measure less well-defined antigens whose serum levels tend to be inconstant but elevated late in the disease, the AMAS test measures a well-defined antibody whose serum levels rise early in the course of the disease. In some cases, the AMAS test has been positive (elevated) early , i.e. 1 to 19 months before clinical detection.
All of the data, from both Bogoch et al. (ref.4) and from the independent study performed by SmithKline Laboratories(ref.6) support the fact that the AMA (Anti-Malignin Antibody) is elevated almost regardless of the site or cell type of the malignancy; that is, AMA is a general transformation antibody, not just for one particular kind of cancer. For sera shipped overnight, false positives are 5% and false negatives 7% (3,315 double-blind tests of patients and controls, refs.4, 6 and 8).
Anti-Malignin Antibody is elevated in 93-100% of cases in which active non-terminal malignancy is the clinico-pathological diagnosis; overall asymptomatic (’false’) positives are 5% in sera kept shipped overnight (refs.4-8). AMA is normal in 96% of cancer patients who no longer have evidence of disease (refs.4,6). Within-run, inter-technician-same-lab, and inter-lab variability are low, as reported in the Smith-Kline study(ref.6).
Every AMAS test is run under rigorous quality control. Control solutions containing known amounts ofstandard monoclonal AMA are run with each test. AMA, when produced in vivo as mouse (ref.3) or as human (ref.7) immunoglobulin, and when isolated from human serum (ref.7) is predominantly IgM. Target® reagent shelf life is as long as 7 years.
PEM test found in local area!
Well it took about 4 hours of searching in google, in phone book and calling varous medical imaging places like Fox Chase (don't have it) and University of Penn Health (don't have it) until I finally found this place in Bensalem:
Bucks County Advanced Imaging
The test is scheduled for next Wednesday, September 13th. I have to say I'm disappointed in the supposedly "cutting edge" cancer places like Fox Chase not having this test. It's been FDA approved for at least a year. Just goes to show you can't assume just because a place says they are on the cutting edge of cancer treatment that they really are.
Bucks County Advanced Imaging
The test is scheduled for next Wednesday, September 13th. I have to say I'm disappointed in the supposedly "cutting edge" cancer places like Fox Chase not having this test. It's been FDA approved for at least a year. Just goes to show you can't assume just because a place says they are on the cutting edge of cancer treatment that they really are.
New Innovative and Safer Breast Screening Tests
This link illustrates some of the newer, safer and less invasive screening tests that will be available soon for women.
Excerpts:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A handheld breast-cancer-detecting device called iFind, the first of its kind, could be on drugstore shelves, next to the home pregnancy tests and massage wands, in about two years. In University of Pennsylvania clinical studies, iFind's near-infrared light successfully detected unusual concentrations of blood vessels that could be feeding a tumor. Using it is similar to feeling for lumps with your hand, but unlike your fingers, the cell-phone-size device can distinguish between usually harmless, fluid-filled cysts and actual masses that should be checked out by a doctor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also have Naviscan's PEM Flex Solo PET scanner, which, when used in combination with a molecular imaging technique, may soon be able to detect small tumors in young, dense breasts more effectively than a mammogram. Advances in nanotechnology indicate that microscopic tubes will one day be used to detect cancer cells in a drop of blood within minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment:
I have been looking into PET scans and many combine CT scans with PET scans and they think this is wonderful. However, CT Scans involve X-Rays. PET scans involve being injected with a "short-life" radiatioactive isotope, but I think it might be safer than being dosed with X-Rays over the entire body. So I am looking for PET scan alone and ideally, really just care about the torso or breast area only... not sure if I can just limit it or if that would matter since they inject the radioactive isotope anyway.
More on Naviscan and similar technology - also called PEM or Positron Emission Mammography:
Positron Emission Mammography Improves Resolution
Excerpts:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A handheld breast-cancer-detecting device called iFind, the first of its kind, could be on drugstore shelves, next to the home pregnancy tests and massage wands, in about two years. In University of Pennsylvania clinical studies, iFind's near-infrared light successfully detected unusual concentrations of blood vessels that could be feeding a tumor. Using it is similar to feeling for lumps with your hand, but unlike your fingers, the cell-phone-size device can distinguish between usually harmless, fluid-filled cysts and actual masses that should be checked out by a doctor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also have Naviscan's PEM Flex Solo PET scanner, which, when used in combination with a molecular imaging technique, may soon be able to detect small tumors in young, dense breasts more effectively than a mammogram. Advances in nanotechnology indicate that microscopic tubes will one day be used to detect cancer cells in a drop of blood within minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment:
I have been looking into PET scans and many combine CT scans with PET scans and they think this is wonderful. However, CT Scans involve X-Rays. PET scans involve being injected with a "short-life" radiatioactive isotope, but I think it might be safer than being dosed with X-Rays over the entire body. So I am looking for PET scan alone and ideally, really just care about the torso or breast area only... not sure if I can just limit it or if that would matter since they inject the radioactive isotope anyway.
More on Naviscan and similar technology - also called PEM or Positron Emission Mammography:
Positron Emission Mammography Improves Resolution
PEM builds on the ability of FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose)-PET to identify and characterize malignant breast tumors. While it operates like PET, it can isolate and enhance breast images better than PET scans, enabling physicians to study molecular abnormalities inside tumor cells.
Compared with whole-body PET scanners, PEM scanners can better image small breast lesions and provide better localization. Besides improved spatial resolution and higher sensitivity for radiation, it provides reduced attenuation and higher coincident counts for image production.
But the resolution is the key, says Paul Grayson, chairman and CEO of Naviscan PET Systems, a manufacturer and marketer of compact, high-resolution PET scanners. The company has developed the PEM Flex PET Scanner, an organ-specific PET device optimized to image breast cancer, which can potentially lead to detection at an earlier, more curable stage.
----------------------------
Such resolution, combined with functional imaging capability that molecular imaging technology provides, improves lesion characterization compared with other modalities. “Anatomical breast imaging modalities, such as MR and CT, are not particularly good at distinguishing between the benign and malignant state, and mammography has poor specificity,” says Watlington.
The resolution is so good that PEM can image ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which is difficult to identify with modalities such as mammography and breast MRI. Noninvasive DCIS represents more than 30% of reported breast cancers. “Such detection can permit a less invasive surgical procedure to be applied in cases that might otherwise be judged to be more severe,” says Watlington.
-------------------------------------------------
Comment: Once again Knowledge is Power...PET Scans
This article outlines why I am planning to get a PET scan. I am hoping my insurance will cover it but if it doesn't I will deal with it because I believe it will help me monitor this lump better than any other test so far.
Some excerpts from the above article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PET scans found 6 "true positives" that were not found with conventional imaging tests. As a result those women began more aggressive treatment. Otherwise they would not have received treatment at that particular time. At the end of the study, these women's tests were still positive (meaning they still had active cancer).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some excerpts from the above article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PET scans performed better than conventional imaging tests on two important dimensions:
- Sensitivity refers to a test's ability to find the earliest signs of active cancer. PET scans found 93% of the true positives, while conventional imaging tests found 78%.
- Specificity refers to how reliable a test is—how good it is at saying for sure whether something is there or not and whether it's truly a problem. In this study, 84% of the positives found by PET scans were true positives, so only 16% were false positives, compared to 34% false positives for conventional imaging tests.
PET scans found 6 "true positives" that were not found with conventional imaging tests. As a result those women began more aggressive treatment. Otherwise they would not have received treatment at that particular time. At the end of the study, these women's tests were still positive (meaning they still had active cancer).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take-home message: Women who have already been treated for invasive breast cancer and are at high risk of recurrence are usually followed carefully by their doctors to see if everything is OK. Compared to the many different tests that can be used, PET scans may offer some advantages, as shown in this study.
PET is more likely than other tests to find something that's wrong, and it's more likely to give an accurate prediction about what's going on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will be going for a full body PET scan so they could actually pick up any other areas where it may have spread as well or confirm for me that it has NOT spread to any other location (which is more likely)Monday, September 04, 2006
Updates to my health strategy
I wanted to update some of the things I am doing in addition to the basic plan I started out with.
I have added the following supplements to my regimen:
AHCC
NAC
Wobenzym
I have modified slightly my morning health shake made in the Vita Mix blender also:
1/2 cup unsweetened soy milk (westsoy)
1/4 cup plain lowfat organic yogurt
1/2 cup blueberries or raspberries
1 whole apple peeled and cored
1/4 cup ground flax meal
1 TBSP high lignan flax oil
1 TBSP bee pollen
1/2 tsp pure Stevia (KAL)
1 tsp natural vanilla extract
1 scoop Alive Whole Food Energizer powder
occasionally I add a banana to the mix also...
My evening supplement regimen is currently - just before bedtime:
1 3mg Melatonin tablet
1 Valerian capsule
1 Artemix (3 different compounds of Artemisinin)
1 FeoSol (ferrous sulfate Iron)
1 FloraSmart ProBiotic (billions of friendly intestinal bacteria)
1 Conjugated Lineolic Acid capsule
I take no anti-oxidants at bedtime to maximize the cancer-oxidizing effect of Artemisinin.
In the morning, I resume the anti-oxidants again to clear up the free radicals created by the destruction of cancer cells by Artemisinin. This is of course not proven yet but strong research supports this method of treatment for cancer.
I drink at least 10 8oz glasses of water with lemon juice per day and I drink white tea with blueberry or green tea during the day.
I eat raw vegetables or make a raw vegetable shake at least once a day and for meat I only consume some fish (sushi, cooked salmon or halibut), occasionally some organic chicken or turkey. I occasionally use organic cheese in small amounts or rice cheese (which is pretty tasty for a cheese replacement). I use brown rice crackers if I snack on hummus. I eat raw Brazil nuts, macadamia nuts, almonds as a snack.
What I have eliminated from my life
teflon cookware (stainless steel and cast iron only)
microwave cooking or reheating
junk food
pizza
desserts or sweets of any kind
refined sugar of any form (only fruit sugar from fruit or Stevia)
MSG
aspartame or any artificial sweeteners
white bread/rice/pasta/potatoes
drinking water with fluoride or chlorine (use Aquasana tap filter)
hydrogenated fats - trans fats (only canola, olive or coconut oil)
dairy except for a small amount of organic cheese or lowfat organic yogurt
Television, movies, commercials (was avid movie watcher prior to this)
Most people would feel this is a terrible hardship and they could never give up their favorite food. For me it was cheese and pizza. I loved those two things and would overeat cheese very easily. I would look forward to the treat of having a pizza now and then. I don't miss the greasy pizza crap I used to eat now and I have zero cravings for desserts or cheese or junk food. Once you get going on eating this way, I believe your body gets retrained and starts to seek out the food that is good for us vs the junk food.
You might wonder - how do I reheat or cook frozen foods? I got a convection oven that I just love. I pop the few frozen foods that have all natural ingredients, into a ceramic dish and cook in the convection oven. It takes a little bit longer but I don't end up with food that is overcooked or dried out or burns me when I try to eat it either. All frozen foods provide instructions for heating without a microwave. Many will say you can put the plastic food container into the oven but I want no part of that. I have to wonder what plastic particles leach into the food with heat.
I have recently added the last line to "what I have eliminated" because I keep remembering changes I made which have not been sudden but more gradual and one of those is the gradual reduction of watching television until eventually I no longer *ever* watch television unless I am forced to watch it by either sitting in a waiting room or someone else's home. I want NO parts of commercials or advertisements that bombard me with their JUNK thinking. Most commercials are trying to show you how you need their product because without it you are not pretty or popular enough. I don't watch television news, I don't read newspapers. I select what I want to read on the Internet and there is plenty of current information there but I don't have it shoved down my THROAT. There is some television programming that is good like what you find on Discovery Channel or another educational channel but since they are sandwiched in advertisements, I no longer choose to subject myself to them either.
I have chosen Sirius Satellite Radio for my music and it is commercial free for the music and on the other channels (non-music) there are commercials but you can *avoid* them because what is playing is always displayed on the screen. When I see the programming is back and the commercial is over I turn the volume back up. I am actually physically repulsed when I hear commercials now and it makes me feel poisoned.
The passive watching of television is a BIG part of what is wrong in this country. It generates a bunch of passive stimulation junkies who don't know how to get up off their butts and do something useful. They just want to sit there and be entertained - and not have to participate.
I also have not been seeing movies, either rented or at the movies. I used to enjoy this but finally realized all movie entertainment has an agenda and something they are trying to pedal to you, the movie watcher, whether it be a political slant or perhaps they just want to scare you and put fear in your mind. I really don't want anyone in my mind making me think in any particular way so I have found that I really don't need passive entertainment. I would much rather read a book now or find some interesting topics on the Internet.
I have added the following supplements to my regimen:
AHCC
NAC
Wobenzym
I have modified slightly my morning health shake made in the Vita Mix blender also:
1/2 cup unsweetened soy milk (westsoy)
1/4 cup plain lowfat organic yogurt
1/2 cup blueberries or raspberries
1 whole apple peeled and cored
1/4 cup ground flax meal
1 TBSP high lignan flax oil
1 TBSP bee pollen
1/2 tsp pure Stevia (KAL)
1 tsp natural vanilla extract
1 scoop Alive Whole Food Energizer powder
occasionally I add a banana to the mix also...
My evening supplement regimen is currently - just before bedtime:
1 3mg Melatonin tablet
1 Valerian capsule
1 Artemix (3 different compounds of Artemisinin)
1 FeoSol (ferrous sulfate Iron)
1 FloraSmart ProBiotic (billions of friendly intestinal bacteria)
1 Conjugated Lineolic Acid capsule
I take no anti-oxidants at bedtime to maximize the cancer-oxidizing effect of Artemisinin.
In the morning, I resume the anti-oxidants again to clear up the free radicals created by the destruction of cancer cells by Artemisinin. This is of course not proven yet but strong research supports this method of treatment for cancer.
I drink at least 10 8oz glasses of water with lemon juice per day and I drink white tea with blueberry or green tea during the day.
I eat raw vegetables or make a raw vegetable shake at least once a day and for meat I only consume some fish (sushi, cooked salmon or halibut), occasionally some organic chicken or turkey. I occasionally use organic cheese in small amounts or rice cheese (which is pretty tasty for a cheese replacement). I use brown rice crackers if I snack on hummus. I eat raw Brazil nuts, macadamia nuts, almonds as a snack.
What I have eliminated from my life
teflon cookware (stainless steel and cast iron only)
microwave cooking or reheating
junk food
pizza
desserts or sweets of any kind
refined sugar of any form (only fruit sugar from fruit or Stevia)
MSG
aspartame or any artificial sweeteners
white bread/rice/pasta/potatoes
drinking water with fluoride or chlorine (use Aquasana tap filter)
hydrogenated fats - trans fats (only canola, olive or coconut oil)
dairy except for a small amount of organic cheese or lowfat organic yogurt
Television, movies, commercials (was avid movie watcher prior to this)
Most people would feel this is a terrible hardship and they could never give up their favorite food. For me it was cheese and pizza. I loved those two things and would overeat cheese very easily. I would look forward to the treat of having a pizza now and then. I don't miss the greasy pizza crap I used to eat now and I have zero cravings for desserts or cheese or junk food. Once you get going on eating this way, I believe your body gets retrained and starts to seek out the food that is good for us vs the junk food.
You might wonder - how do I reheat or cook frozen foods? I got a convection oven that I just love. I pop the few frozen foods that have all natural ingredients, into a ceramic dish and cook in the convection oven. It takes a little bit longer but I don't end up with food that is overcooked or dried out or burns me when I try to eat it either. All frozen foods provide instructions for heating without a microwave. Many will say you can put the plastic food container into the oven but I want no part of that. I have to wonder what plastic particles leach into the food with heat.
I have recently added the last line to "what I have eliminated" because I keep remembering changes I made which have not been sudden but more gradual and one of those is the gradual reduction of watching television until eventually I no longer *ever* watch television unless I am forced to watch it by either sitting in a waiting room or someone else's home. I want NO parts of commercials or advertisements that bombard me with their JUNK thinking. Most commercials are trying to show you how you need their product because without it you are not pretty or popular enough. I don't watch television news, I don't read newspapers. I select what I want to read on the Internet and there is plenty of current information there but I don't have it shoved down my THROAT. There is some television programming that is good like what you find on Discovery Channel or another educational channel but since they are sandwiched in advertisements, I no longer choose to subject myself to them either.
I have chosen Sirius Satellite Radio for my music and it is commercial free for the music and on the other channels (non-music) there are commercials but you can *avoid* them because what is playing is always displayed on the screen. When I see the programming is back and the commercial is over I turn the volume back up. I am actually physically repulsed when I hear commercials now and it makes me feel poisoned.
The passive watching of television is a BIG part of what is wrong in this country. It generates a bunch of passive stimulation junkies who don't know how to get up off their butts and do something useful. They just want to sit there and be entertained - and not have to participate.
I also have not been seeing movies, either rented or at the movies. I used to enjoy this but finally realized all movie entertainment has an agenda and something they are trying to pedal to you, the movie watcher, whether it be a political slant or perhaps they just want to scare you and put fear in your mind. I really don't want anyone in my mind making me think in any particular way so I have found that I really don't need passive entertainment. I would much rather read a book now or find some interesting topics on the Internet.
What Chemotherapy really does to a body
From this link
Tamoxifen is among the best-selling anticancer drugs in the world. Tamoxifen is not a harmless or non-toxic supplement. It is a powerful and unpredictable agent, with complex and little understood effects on the body's hormonal balance. The drug itself causes endometrial cancer and cancer of the liver in animals.
cancer and Tamoxifen
Tamoxifen has made a small fortune for its manufacturer, ICI, and their American distributor, Zeneca, Ltd. of Delaware.
Most of the 40 or so chemotherapeutic agents cause baldness by producing a weakened hair shaft that breaks off at the scalp. Hair may take years to return to normal.
Nausea and vomiting are common. Such nausea can lead to weakness, weight loss, dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Other GI effects are infections of the mucous lining, lips, tongue and mouth. Abdominal colic, constipation, diarrhea are all common. Candida (thrush) is found in 13% of patients. Doxorubicin causes esophagus inflammation in 50%.
Toxic drugs leaking from a needle causes skin necrosis. Severe damage to nerves, tendons and muscle can follow. Surgeons treat this by excising the skin, followed by grafts to repair the damage. Radiation recall: skin, trying to heal from radiation burns, reddens and peels again; blisters and oozing follow. 5-FU can even make people burn from normal sunlight.
Busulfan and other drugs cause discoloration of the skin, weakness, inability to eat and weight loss. Doxorubicin causes darkening of fingers and toes. Bleomycin results in weird pigmentation of the trunk. Thiotepa leads to whitening of the eyelids, nail damage, brittleness, loosening and even loss of nail plates.
Most anti-cancer drugs also cause second cancers, especially of the GI tract, ovaries, and lungs. These are nearly impossible to treat. Tumors continue to develop for years. In one study, 17% of survivors developed unrelated cancer up to 15 years later.
Immune system damage is almost universal. The whole panoply of blood diseases is seen: thrombocytopenia with its loss of white blood cells which guard against infection; severe bone marrow hypoplasia; inability to synthesize fibrinogen; abnormally long bleeding time; granulocytopenia. Resulting infections can be treated with antibiotics, but these in turn can bring their own set of side effects.
Heart damage can occur weeks, months or years after treatment, signalled by rapid heart beat, shortness of breath, distended neck veins, swollen ankles, an enlarged liver and heart. Up to 30% of high-dose Doxorubicin recipients develop congestive heart failure.
Over 40% of patients experience mouth ulcers, pain and bleeding, which can make eating a torture. Other problems: candida, herpes and viral infections, dry mouth, drooling, painful swallowing. Loss of sensation, muscle pain, weakness and changes in senses and motor skills are common. Methotrexate causes stiff neck, headache, nausea, vomiting, fever and lethargy for up to 72 hours. Paralysis, paraplegia and death have also occurred. Vinblastine and vincristine cause double vision, loss of bladder control, impotence, and paralysis of the bowel wall.
Ear damage and hearing loss are associated with cis-platin, which is being used against testicular, ovarian, cervical, head and neck cancers.
Reproductive organs can be profoundly damaged, resulting in sterility.
Given these almost uniformly bad results, where did the idea originate that chemotherapy is of such benefit in cancer? One reason is because toxic drugs often do effect a response. i.e., a partial or complete shrinkage of the tumor. But contrary to popular opinion, this reduction of tumor mass does not prolong expected survival. Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns more aggressively than before because killing off 99% of a mass fosters the growth of resistant cell lines.
Chemotherapy came out of World War II mustard gas experiments and it remains poison. The AMA routinely condemns natural cancer treatments as quackery. But isn't it time that it dropped its quackbusting crusade and replaced it with an open-minded investigation of such methods?
Tamoxifen is among the best-selling anticancer drugs in the world. Tamoxifen is not a harmless or non-toxic supplement. It is a powerful and unpredictable agent, with complex and little understood effects on the body's hormonal balance. The drug itself causes endometrial cancer and cancer of the liver in animals.
cancer and Tamoxifen
Tamoxifen has made a small fortune for its manufacturer, ICI, and their American distributor, Zeneca, Ltd. of Delaware.
Most of the 40 or so chemotherapeutic agents cause baldness by producing a weakened hair shaft that breaks off at the scalp. Hair may take years to return to normal.
Nausea and vomiting are common. Such nausea can lead to weakness, weight loss, dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Other GI effects are infections of the mucous lining, lips, tongue and mouth. Abdominal colic, constipation, diarrhea are all common. Candida (thrush) is found in 13% of patients. Doxorubicin causes esophagus inflammation in 50%.
Toxic drugs leaking from a needle causes skin necrosis. Severe damage to nerves, tendons and muscle can follow. Surgeons treat this by excising the skin, followed by grafts to repair the damage. Radiation recall: skin, trying to heal from radiation burns, reddens and peels again; blisters and oozing follow. 5-FU can even make people burn from normal sunlight.
Busulfan and other drugs cause discoloration of the skin, weakness, inability to eat and weight loss. Doxorubicin causes darkening of fingers and toes. Bleomycin results in weird pigmentation of the trunk. Thiotepa leads to whitening of the eyelids, nail damage, brittleness, loosening and even loss of nail plates.
Most anti-cancer drugs also cause second cancers, especially of the GI tract, ovaries, and lungs. These are nearly impossible to treat. Tumors continue to develop for years. In one study, 17% of survivors developed unrelated cancer up to 15 years later.
Immune system damage is almost universal. The whole panoply of blood diseases is seen: thrombocytopenia with its loss of white blood cells which guard against infection; severe bone marrow hypoplasia; inability to synthesize fibrinogen; abnormally long bleeding time; granulocytopenia. Resulting infections can be treated with antibiotics, but these in turn can bring their own set of side effects.
Heart damage can occur weeks, months or years after treatment, signalled by rapid heart beat, shortness of breath, distended neck veins, swollen ankles, an enlarged liver and heart. Up to 30% of high-dose Doxorubicin recipients develop congestive heart failure.
Over 40% of patients experience mouth ulcers, pain and bleeding, which can make eating a torture. Other problems: candida, herpes and viral infections, dry mouth, drooling, painful swallowing. Loss of sensation, muscle pain, weakness and changes in senses and motor skills are common. Methotrexate causes stiff neck, headache, nausea, vomiting, fever and lethargy for up to 72 hours. Paralysis, paraplegia and death have also occurred. Vinblastine and vincristine cause double vision, loss of bladder control, impotence, and paralysis of the bowel wall.
Ear damage and hearing loss are associated with cis-platin, which is being used against testicular, ovarian, cervical, head and neck cancers.
Reproductive organs can be profoundly damaged, resulting in sterility.
Given these almost uniformly bad results, where did the idea originate that chemotherapy is of such benefit in cancer? One reason is because toxic drugs often do effect a response. i.e., a partial or complete shrinkage of the tumor. But contrary to popular opinion, this reduction of tumor mass does not prolong expected survival. Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns more aggressively than before because killing off 99% of a mass fosters the growth of resistant cell lines.
Chemotherapy came out of World War II mustard gas experiments and it remains poison. The AMA routinely condemns natural cancer treatments as quackery. But isn't it time that it dropped its quackbusting crusade and replaced it with an open-minded investigation of such methods?
Conventional Medicine Victims
Please read this story below if you are in any way still thinking that conventional medicine has any clue about how to treat chronic diseases. Things are really in bad shape in this country with medical care and you can only hope to God you don't find out for yourself the hard way.
Dr Russel Blaylock lost his brother to medical mistreatment of cancer
The worst thing that could happen to me would be to somehow end up in a hospital and lose control of what enters my body and what is done to it. I didn't feel this way when I was a kid. I trusted doctors and hospitals. Now I see their limitations and their short sightedness. They don't know about new research. They keep doing the "protocol" passed down by the almighty AMA and until their cult leaders tell them differently, they continue down the path blindly, doing the same ineffective treatments to more and more patients.
Found this information posted in a forum. It contains verifiable references.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What doctors say about Chemo Therapy
There is no scientific evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers, which accounts for 80% of all cancers? (Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990)
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.
"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."---Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society.
"We know that conventional therapy doesn’t work—if it did you would not fear cancer any more than you fear pneumonia. It is the utter lack of certainty as to the outcome of conventional treatment that virtually screams for more freedom of choice in the area of cancer therapy. Yet most so-called alternative therapies regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed, which forces patients to submit to the failures we know don’t work, because there is no other choice.
What the National Cancer Institutes OWN studies say about the toxic treatments they approve for cancer
A report from the Southern Research Institute, dated April 13, 1972, based upon research conducted for the National Cancer Institute, indicated that most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society’s "proven cure" category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy! (NCI research contract PH-43-68-.998. Information contained in letter from Dean Burk to Congressman Lou Frey, Jr., May 30,1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit., p. 5.)
"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."
What other medical Journals have to show in their studies:
Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40----which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)
"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before…More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."---Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine
Little known fact about survivor rates in those who opt for toxic cancer treatments verses those who didn't do anything....
Did you know that 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics & Physiology at Berkeley, found that the life expectancy of untreated cancer cases appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of treated individuals?
1969 Science Writers Conference of the ACS
They KNEW this 30 years ago and yet these barbaric life threatening toxic procedures continue.
With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional cancer therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please check this link for more detailed information from Dr Ulrich Abel
Dr Russel Blaylock lost his brother to medical mistreatment of cancer
The worst thing that could happen to me would be to somehow end up in a hospital and lose control of what enters my body and what is done to it. I didn't feel this way when I was a kid. I trusted doctors and hospitals. Now I see their limitations and their short sightedness. They don't know about new research. They keep doing the "protocol" passed down by the almighty AMA and until their cult leaders tell them differently, they continue down the path blindly, doing the same ineffective treatments to more and more patients.
Found this information posted in a forum. It contains verifiable references.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What doctors say about Chemo Therapy
There is no scientific evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers, which accounts for 80% of all cancers? (Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990)
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.
"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."---Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society.
"We know that conventional therapy doesn’t work—if it did you would not fear cancer any more than you fear pneumonia. It is the utter lack of certainty as to the outcome of conventional treatment that virtually screams for more freedom of choice in the area of cancer therapy. Yet most so-called alternative therapies regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed, which forces patients to submit to the failures we know don’t work, because there is no other choice.
What the National Cancer Institutes OWN studies say about the toxic treatments they approve for cancer
A report from the Southern Research Institute, dated April 13, 1972, based upon research conducted for the National Cancer Institute, indicated that most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society’s "proven cure" category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy! (NCI research contract PH-43-68-.998. Information contained in letter from Dean Burk to Congressman Lou Frey, Jr., May 30,1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit., p. 5.)
"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."
What other medical Journals have to show in their studies:
Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40----which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)
"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before…More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."---Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine
Little known fact about survivor rates in those who opt for toxic cancer treatments verses those who didn't do anything....
Did you know that 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics & Physiology at Berkeley, found that the life expectancy of untreated cancer cases appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of treated individuals?
1969 Science Writers Conference of the ACS
They KNEW this 30 years ago and yet these barbaric life threatening toxic procedures continue.
With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional cancer therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please check this link for more detailed information from Dr Ulrich Abel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)