Lymphedema More Common Than You Think After Breast Cancer Treatment

The mainstream cancer treatment machine once again pulls the wool over your eyes when they minimize the side effects of the "sentinel lymph node biopsy" which often results in lymphedema in the arm where they remove the lymph nodes to check them. This is why I rejected that way of checking for cancer in my lymph nodes. I am of the belief that they are there for a reason and removing them to check them for cancer is ridiculous. Several doctors I saw during my ordeal touted this as a great improvement since they only take a "few" lymph nodes from the armpit area. Apparently in the past they used to remove way more - and I'm supposed to be delighted by this "improvement"?

For me, it would have been my right arm and if lymphedema had struck me, it would have severely limited by use of my right arm and I am right handed, active and athletic. I like to garden and do my own yard work. I play volleyball (although not lately) and this would have surely meant I could not continue to do these things.

I discovered there is a MUCH safer alternative to this barbaric procedure to CHECK the lymph nodes. It is called PEM or Positron Emmission Mammography. This is actually a PET scan of just the breasts and usually also includes the lymph node area as well. It can tell whether there is cancer activity in the lymph nodes nearest the breast WITHOUT removing them. A PEM scan is much less inflammatory to the breasts than a regular mammogram, although you are injected with radioactive sugar - so it's not something you want to use for regular screening for breast cancer. However, upon first suspicion that there is a lump that potentially could be breast cancer, it should be what is chosen to investigate further.

Women also have the alternative now of using Breast Thermography which I believe is the way to go for regular screening for breast cancer. The mainstream cancer doctors won't agree with me but in the end - do you really care what they think when they promote such unhealthy tests and treatments for cancer? I am a firm believer in "first do no harm" which apparently most in the medical profession today have forgotten.

The following article shows that most women are NOT fully informed of the risk of lymphedema by their doctors and that they DO in fact DOWNPLAY the risk because most breast surgeons are SO intent on surgery as the solution - even for "probable" ductal carcinoma - as in my case. They are SO eager to cut you - make no mistake about it. Funny how most breast surgeons are men isn't it? Would they be so eager to cut if it were their penis? They seem to think the breasts are expendable and many women choose to have both breasts removed so that they don't have to worry about breast cancer. Instead of heralding this I am shocked and saddened that women feel such animosity toward their breasts and such lack of confidence in their own immune system. I feel that this "preventative" strategy shows cowardice - not bravery. It is sad to see women buying into the fear machine of the cancer industry to the point that they would proactively remove their breasts to avoid it.

Trying to prevent lymphedema after breast cancer

By LAURAN NEERGAARD – Dec 30 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hospitals in about a dozen states are testing whether some simple steps, such as arm-strengthening exercises, could reduce the risk of one of breast cancer's troubling legacies — the painful and sometimes severe arm swelling called lymphedema. Lymphedema has long been a neglected side effect of cancer surgery and radiation: Many women say they never were warned, even though spotting this problem early improves outcomes.

And while less invasive surgical techniques mean fewer breast cancer patients today than just a few years ago should face lymphedema, it's a lingering threat for tens of thousands of survivors because it can strike two decades after their tumor was treated.

"I have ladies tell me the lymphedema is much worse than their cancer because the cancer's cured," says Dr. Electra Paskett, an epidemiologist at Ohio State University who is leading the first-of-its-kind research into possible protective steps.

Among them: Wearing elastic sleeves to counter temporary swelling during things like airplane flight or heavy lifting, and doing special exercises with light weights designed to help keep open the lymph channels that allow fluid to drain through the body.

"The theory is building up muscles in your arm acts as a natural pneumatic pump to move the fluid," explains Paskett, herself a breast cancer survivor who developed lymphedema.

When lymph nodes under a breast cancer patient's arm are removed or damaged by biopsy, surgery or radiation, lymph fluid can build up and cause anything from mild swelling to a ballooning of the arm.

...

But lymphedema among breast cancer survivors may be most common. It's been estimated to affect between 20 percent and 30 percent of patients who have 10 or more under-the-arm nodes examined, called an "axillary lymph node dissection."

...

Today, some women have far fewer nodes examined in a "sentinel node biopsy," and separate research suggests those women are far less likely to get later lymphedema — possibly as low as 5 percent, Paskett notes — although many don't qualify for the smaller surgery because of large tumors or other factors

But perhaps most concerning from the Iowa data, only 40 percent of the women with swollen arms but no diagnosis had heard of lymphedema and less than 2 percent had sought care for their arm symptoms.

So, you decide - do you want to potentially live with lymphedema or do you want to take steps to check them WITHOUT surgery? I have always thought it ridiculous that, the first doctor you are sent to when they think you have breast cancer is a BREAST SURGEON. How about sending women to an oncologist first hmm? I think it shows that mainstream medicine is still dominated by male thinking because of that.

Thermograms are a Much Safer Alternative to Mammograms

Found this excellent article that is totally aligned with my own experiences with a "probable" breast cancer lump. As an update to my story - I am still cancer free as far as I know. My last MRI was March 2007 and it declared "the lump" to be "scar tissue". I have not had any tests since then. I do plan to get an updated thermography scan at the same place I used in late 2006. There is still the feeling of a lump there although it sometimes itches and sometimes it seems there is a scab forming on the surface where the lump is. The pucker in the skin near the lump has turned a darker pink as if it is healing. I am not nearly as religious with my eating as I was but I still take several supplements each day including Juice Plus (when I feel like taking 6 capsules), also Alfalfa, Seaweed (for iodine), Vit C, Vit D3 and several other whole food type supplements. I try to stay away from "processed" vitamins and rely mostly on "whole food" types. But I digress..

Here are excerpts from the excellent article on Natural News :

(NaturalNews) After a lifetime of mind indoctrination and brainwashing by the disease establishment, it's often next to impossible to break away. We have been taught throughout our lives that the answer to our physical problems resides in our doctor's office. We've been made to believe that science reveals all answers and our own innate common sense is worth nothing. It is just this type of mind control that compels women to line up for mammograms, even though their common sense tells them that radiation causes cancer. The good news is that now there is a much safer alternative scientifically proven to be effective at early detection. For women who feel they must spend their time looking for lumps, two recent studies have documented the value of thermography

Breast thermography uses heat to detect abnormalities

The thermogram is a test using heat radiating from your own body to detect problems in the breast. It involves no contact with the body, no compression, and is completely painless. A thermogram combines advanced digital technology with ultra-sensitive infrared camera imaging. It does not use radiation, and can be done as frequently as anyone thinks is necessary. Thermograms work by creating infra-red images (heat pictures) that are then analyzed to find asymmetries anywhere in the chest and underarm area. Any abnormality that causes change in heat production is seen on a thermogram, so any source of inflammation such as infection, trauma to the breast, and even sun burn will cause abnormality in the thermal picture.

Breast thermography detects patterns of heat generated by the increased circulation produced by abnormal metabolic activity in cancer cells. This activity occurs long before a cancer starts to invade new tissue. A breast thermogram has the ability to identify a breast abnormality five to ten years before the problem can be found on a mammogram

...

A study reported in the American Journal of Surgery, October edition, included 92 women who had undergone a breast biopsy based on prior mammogram or ultrasound results. 60 of the biopsies were malignant, and 34 were benign (two of the women had two biopsies). These women were then given thermograms. Results indicted the thermograms identified 58 of the 60 malignancies for a sensitivity rate of 97%.

....

A recent study suggested that many breast lumps disappear on their own

Scientists who completed a recent study on the effects of mammograms concluded that some of the cancers detected could spontaneously regress if they were not discovered and treated. This conclusion appeals to common sense, because we know one of the basic principals of function in the body is constant striving to heal and restore homeostasis.

The disease establishment wants us to devote time and energy in a continuous search for breast lumps. We are told to examine ourselves every morning, and get as many mammograms as we can. After all, the sooner we can find the tiniest lump, the sooner we can be herded into the great cancer machine, and more money will be available to feed that machine. Yet when we are finally spit out the other end of that machine we are often ruined and unable to ever regain our health. Women have been turned into recruitment agents for this machine. We have been programmed to the point that many women never go a day without worrying about breast cancer.

As a people we tend to have limits to our physical, mental, emotional and psychological resources. How we direct these resources is our choice. We can spend our resources taking tests, examining ourselves for lumps and worrying. Or we can spend our time and resources raising our health status to the level where breast cancer becomes a non-issue.

About the author

Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using "alternative" treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

Read the full article for even more information.

Study: New way to spot breast cancer shows promise

Improvements in Detecting Breast Cancers - However - Not Quite Ready for Prime Time

I say that because although this new method is indeed promising - it requires "an amount of radiation 8 to 10 times that of a mammogram". Is that really worth the risk? They say in the article that they are working on reducing it.. well that will be good. The first rule of medicine is "first do no harm" and testing should definitely not be doing harm in this blogger's opinion.

One thing I got from this article is more proof that mammograms give FALSE POSITIVES and cause additional and needless worry for many women. I still think that self examination - knowing your own breasts - and an annual MRI - are the best ways to detect developing breast cancers - not mammograms.

By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical Writer

A radioactive tracer that "lights up" cancer hiding inside dense breasts showed promise in its first big test against mammograms, revealing more tumors and giving fewer false alarms, doctors reported Wednesday.

The experimental method — molecular breast imaging, or MBI — would not replace mammograms for women at average risk of the disease.

But it might become an additional tool for higher risk women with a lot of dense tissue that makes tumors hard to spot on mammograms, and it could be done at less cost than an MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging. About one-fourth of women 40 and older have dense breasts.

"MBI is a promising technology" that is already in advanced testing, said Carrie Hruska, a biomedical engineer at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been working on it for six years.

She gave results in a telephone news briefing Wednesday and will present them later this week at an American Society of Clinical Oncology conference in Washington, D.C.

Mammograms — a type of X-ray — are the chief way now to check for breast cancer. MBI uses radiation, too, but in a different way. Women are given an intravenous dose of a short-acting tracer that is absorbed more by abnormal cells than healthy ones. Special cameras collect the "glow" these cells give off, and doctors look at the picture to spot tumors.

Researchers tried both methods, on 940 women who had dense breasts and a high risk of cancer because of family history, bad genes or other reasons.

Thirteen tumors were found in 12 women — eight by MBI alone, one by mammography alone, two by both methods and two by neither. (The two missed cancers were found on subsequent annual mammograms, physical exams or other imaging tests.)

Looked at another way, MBI found 10 out of 13 tumors, missing three; mammograms detected three out of 13 tumors and missed 10. Using both methods, 11 out of 13 tumors would have been detected.

"These images are quite striking. You can see how the cancers would be hidden on the mammograms," Hruska said.

Mammograms gave false alarms — led doctors to conclude that cancer was present when it was not — in about 9 percent of patients, compared to only 7 percent for MBI. The MBI tests led to more biopsies than mammograms did, but they more often revealed cancer.

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which makes the imaging agent used in the study, paid for the work.

The next test will be to see how MBI stacks up against MRI. The federal government is paying for a new study Mayo is leading that compares the two in 120 high-risk women with dense breasts.

MRI is often used now for women with dense breasts, but it gives many false alarms that lead to unnecessary biopsies. Doctors hope MBI will prove more accurate and cost less — under $500 versus more than $1,000 for an MRI.

"We all know that mammography is, in and of itself, an imperfect tool, and we clearly need to do better in the future," said Dr. Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, a spokesman for the oncology group. "It is fair to say that MRI will not solve all problems either."

One drawback of MBI: It uses about 8 to 10 times the radiation of mammograms, a dose that engineers like Hruska are trying to lower with newer technology. Other medical centers also are testing MBI.

"We're just beginning to see what this technology can do," she said.

CT Scans Emit Massive Doses of Radiation, Promote Cancer

This is not a surprise to me at all.. and the use of CT Scans in current medical practice is OUT OF CONTROL to say the least. Case in point. My Mom found out in the Fall of 2007 that she had lung cancer and she died in May 2008 from double pneumonia ultimately, not the lung cancer. During that time I will bet she received no less than EIGHT CT SCANS. Each time I questioned her getting yet another CT Scan and everyone agreed it was necessary to "see what was going on"...

Now I see how very dangerous it was and probably hastened my Mom's death. There is no proof of this direct cause and effect - that is true. But certainly if ONE CT Scan is 100 times the radiation of a chest x-ray - how good is it for you to have 800 TIMES THE RADIATION of a chest x-ray in a short period of time hmmmm?????

Doctors are addicted to "seeing what is going on" and it is at the expense of the safety and health of their patients as well as costing health insurance companies and patients millions of dollars spent on these scans to boot.

(NaturalNews) A British government report has called for tighter regulation of private clinics that offer full-body computed tomography (CT) scans, saying that such scans expose patients to a massive and cancer-promoting blast of radiation.

Many private clinics offer full-body CT scans to patients who want to search for early indicators of heart disease or cancer. In the United Kingdom, such scans typically cost between £500 and £2,000 ($1,000-$4,000).

The new report by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation strongly advises that private clinics end this practice, and says that the government needs to better regulate the practice.

Full-body CT scans expose patients to approximately 100 times the radiation of a standard chest X-ray. Any radiation exposure is known to increase the risk of cancer, in particular, radiation in high doses. The report says that for every 2,000 people getting a full-body CT scan twice per year, one can be expected to contract a fatal cancer.

In addition, the report notes that such scans often lead to false alarms that lead to great expense and emotional distress for patients. Minor abnormalities that are at no risk of becoming malignant that are detected by a CT scan may lead to a series of unnecessary, invasive, expensive and painful medical tests, in addition to needless anxiety and fear.

This assessment echoes the position of the British Medical Association, which has called private CT scans "a waste of money" at best, and a health danger at worst.

The report recommends that patients who are exhibiting symptoms that they want diagnosed with a CT scan should instead be referred back to their general practitioner for treatment.

In response to the report, the Department of Health announced that government ministers will consult on the issue and consider banning full-body CT scans except in cases of medical necessity.

Article here on Natural News

Six Weeks Of Radiation Therapy May Be Unnecessary For Many Breast Cancer Patients

More good new for breast cancer patients - especially those who are new diagnosed and facing possible lumpectomy. I don't know that I would choose lumpectomy ever, but others might so I think if you do go that route, the least damaging treatment is always going to be the best one.

Groundbreaking European study by Dr. Umberto Veronesi proves a single dose of radiation can be equal to the traditional six-week course

Many women with breast cancer may not need six weeks of daily radiation after surgery. This explosive finding was made public at the recent International Society of Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (ISIORT) conference held in Madrid, Spain earlier this month.

A Single Dose of Radiation is Enough

Renowned surgeon Dr. Umberto Veronesi, founder of the European Institute of Oncology, shared for the first time the results of a long-awaited, eight-year randomized trial comparing his breast cancer patients' response to two types of radiation therapy. The results so far show that women who received breast conserving surgery, followed by a single dose of intraoperative electron-beam radiation therapy (IOERT) at the time of surgery, had an equal chance of survival as women who underwent the surgery, followed by six weeks of post-operative radiation therapy.

These amazing findings demonstrate that the standard radiation regimen for some lumpectomy patients - already expensive, sometimes painful, and very time-consuming - may be unnecessary.

Dr. Veronesi told the cancer specialists attending ISIORT from 21 countries around the world that IOERT has "obvious advantages in terms of overall treatment time, costs, patient comfort, cosmetic results and quality of life." He continued, "In my opinion, this will become the routine procedure for breast conserving therapy."

But while IOERT is quickly becoming the protocol for breast cancer radiation therapy in Europe, most American women are unaware this choice even exists. Those that dare to bring the alternative radiation treatment to their doctors' attention are experiencing resistance from hospitals unwilling to even investigate the life-saving devices that administer this treatment.

Arleen's Story

Arleen Sharwell, a breast cancer patient from Long Island, New York, did what all women do: she went to a local breast surgeon for a treatment recommendation. Arleen was told she needed a lumpectomy to remove the tumor, followed by five-to-six weeks of radiation therapy. Having heard about IOERT, Arleen asked if she was a candidate for a single-dose radiation treatment. Her doctor flatly refused to investigate - or to give Arleen a referral to a hospital that did offer such a treatment.

The sad truth is that while more than twenty centers around the world are actively engaged in such a program for their patients, only one hospital in North America currently offers single-dose IOERT treatments for breast cancer: The University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Arleen reached out to UNC doctors Joel Tepper, professor and former chair of radiation oncology, and David Ollila, associate professor and surgical director for the multidisciplinary breast program and multidisciplinary melanoma program. Dr. Tepper and Dr. Ollila immediately recognized that Arleen was a candidate for the single-dose, single-day lumpectomy and IOERT treatment. To Arleen's delight, her entire breast cancer treatment was completed in one day.

About IOERT

IOERT is the process of delivering a very effective dose of electron-beam radiation to cancer patients during surgery. Hospitals all over the world are discovering innovative applications for the procedure, for virtually every type of cancer. The benefits of IOERT for patients are numerous. By pinpointing the exact area that requires radiation, doctors can deliver a direct dose to affected tissue without passing through the surrounding healthy organs and harming them. For breast cancer patients like Arleen, this often means a single dose of radiation, followed by reconstruction, in a single surgery.

The only FDA-approved device available in North America that is capable of delivering the IOERT treatment extolled by Dr. Veronesi in an unshielded operating room is IntraOp's Mobetron. The Mobetron is the first fully portable, self-shielded linear accelerator that can be used in an existing operating room.

In addition to their breast cancer program, the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center uses the Mobetron to deliver IOERT to more than ten different types of cancer. There are four additional hospitals in the US that own the Mobetron and are planning on adding a breast cancer protocol to their ongoing IOERT program.

What Women Need to Know

"I know how difficult accepting a breast cancer diagnosis can be," said Arleen Sharwell. "However, I can't stress enough how crucial it is to do your research. When I found the treatment option that I knew was best for me, I refused to let my doctor tell me no. My persistence paid off when I connected with the doctors at UNC and got the single-dose, single-day IOERT treatment I wanted."

President and CEO of IntraOp, John Powers, echoes Arleen's sentiment. "Women need to know that they do not have to suffer through six weeks of standard, daily radiation treatment. IOERT can help them get through this terrifying time in their lives much more quickly."

In IOERT treatment, the skin is protected at all times, preventing it from receiving any of the damage associated with prolonged radiation therapy. Because of this, patients who receive IOERT for cancer treatment also enjoy better cosmetic results. "Three months after surgery, I could hardly tell I had anything done. You would have thought I had plastic surgery," Arleen said.

"IOERT has been a very viable radiation therapy option for years that may now get the needed recognition with the release of Dr. Veronesi's randomized trial results," Dr. Ollila noted. "We have been performing single-dose IOERT for breast cancer patients for more than four years now and feel that it is a viable option for patients seeking to save the breast with minimal radiation exposure."

For additional information on Dr. Veronesi's study, single-dose IOERT and the Mobetron, please visit the .

About IntraOp

IntraOp Medical Corporation provides innovative technology solutions for the treatment and eradication of cancer. Founded in 1993, IntraOp is committed to providing the tools doctors need to administer intraoperative radiation therapy safely and effectively - for all cancer patients. The company's flagship product, the Mobetron, is the first fully portable, self-shielding intraoperative electron radiation therapy device designed for use in any operating room. Key Mobetron benefits include: increased survival rates, better local tumor control, shorter treatment cycles, and fewer side effects. Leading hospitals, from university research centers to specialized cancer clinics in North America, Europe and Asia, use the Mobetron as a vital part of their comprehensive cancer program.

For more information about IntraOp Medical and the Mobetron, please visit: www.intraopmedical.com

IP6 - A Rising Star in the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer

News on some recent studies regarding IP6 - inositol hexaphosphate. I have taken an IP6 supplement - more so during my initial diagnosis - only occasionally now. It is made by Cell Forte - and can be purchased at LifeExtension's store for one source.

(NaturalNews) Three recent studies have confirmed the role of inositol hexaphosphate (IP6) in cancer prevention and control of experimental tumor growth. IP6 is a naturally occurring carbohydrate first identified in 1855. It can exist on its own or can be bound to various other minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron or sodium. It's found in substantial amounts in whole grains, dried beans, nuts, seeds, rice, wheat germ and corn.

In addition to being found in plants, IP6 is contained within almost all mammalian cells, where it is important in regulating vital cellular functions such as signal transduction, cell proliferation, and differentiation. IP6 is also available in supplement form.

Studies and Results

As published in Oncology Research, February 2008, researchers reported that IP6 was shown to have significant inhibitory effects against a variety of primary tumors. They hypothesized that IP6 would inhibit the cell growth rate of Barrett's adenocarcinoma in vitro. Two Barrett's associated adenocarcinoma cell lines were treated with IP6. Reductions in cellular proliferation were observed in both cell lines. Apoptosis (necessary programmed cell death) of the adenocarcinoma cells was increased. Researchers concluded that IP6 decreased cellular growth of these cells by pro-apoptotic mechanisms.

As published in Journal of Surgical Research, June 2006, researchers reported that IP6 had previously been shown to have significant inhibitory effects against pancreatic cancer in vitro. They hypothesized that IP6 would significantly inhibit cell growth of cutaneous melanoma in vitro. Melanoma cell lines were cultured and treated with IP6. The findings were that IP6 significantly decreased cellular growth and increased late apoptosis in melanoma, suggesting its potential therapeutic value.

As published in Journal of Surgical Research, June 2005, researchers reported that IP6 has been found to have significant inhibitory effects against a variety of primary tumors including breast and colon. They hypothesized that IP6 would significantly inhibit cell growth and increase the apoptotic rate of pancreatic cancer in vitro. Two pancreatic cancer cell lines were cultured and treated with IP6. Researchers concluded that treatment of pancreatic cancer with IP6 significantly decreased cellular growth and increased apoptosis.

IP6 Offers Cancer Prevention and Cure, and Much More

In Dr. A.M. Shamsuddin's review of findings in Nutrition and Cancer vol. 55, he states that in addition to its role in cancer prevention and control of experimental tumor growth, progression and metastasis, IP6 possesses other significant benefits, such as the ability to enhance the immune system, function as a natural antioxidant, prevent calcification and kidney stone formation, lower elevated serum cholesterol, and reduce pathological platelet activity.

According to Dr. Shamsuddin, when IP6 is administered it is rapidly taken into the cells and dephosphorylated to lower inositol phosphates, which further affect signal transduction pathways. In addition to the arresting of cell proliferation, this process also induces the differentiation of malignant cells. As previous known, the more differentiated the malignant cells, the less aggressive and dangerous is the cancer. Enhanced immunity and antioxidant properties also contribute to tumor cell destruction.

In their book Too Good to be True?, Drs. Kim Vanderlinden and Ivana Vucenik describe what is presently known about how IP6 works to help normalize the rate of cell division, normalize cell physiology, enhance Natural Killer (NK) cells, increase tumor suppressor P53 gene activity, inhibit inflammation, and inhibit angiogenesis. The book also elaborates on other conditions shown to greatly benefit from IP6 including diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Food Sources or Supplements?

There have been no clinical trials of IP6 as yet. In America, clinical trials are generally the province of drug companies, and little is done with substances which cannot be patented. In spite of this lack, IP6 is considered quite safe by all its investigators. As it is a naturally occurring substance already found in human cells, there are no side effects. So if you want the preventative or therapeutic benefits of IP6, the question becomes whether to try to get sufficient amounts from dietary sources or to supplement.

There are reasons to use IP6 in supplemental form. In food, IP6 is bound to protein. Before it can be absorbed it must first be freed from this protein. An enzyme called phytase that is present in both food and the intestinal tract performs this function. The problem is that the power of the phytase enzyme damages the IP6 itself, rendering much of it inactive and therefore less effective.

Pure IP6 from a supplement is absorbed intact providing us with its complete medicinal properties. Research has shown just that: when fiber from All Bran was added to the diet of rats with mammary cancer, it was much less effective than the equivalent amount of IP6 added to their drinking water. This is like the situation of lycopene which must be freed from tomatoes by cooking to achieve its potential.

Supplementing with Inositol+Cal-Mag IP6

When taken alone, IP6 has the potential to bind with minerals, to act as a chelator. This is evidenced by its ability to prevent kidney stones. This leads to the question of high amounts of IP6 contributing to osteoporosis. To prevent this, IP6 is bound to atoms of calcium and magnesium. When supplemented in this form, IP6 will be delivered to the body along with substantial amounts of highly absorbable calcium and magnesium.

Inositol then becomes the first half of the Inositol+Cal Mag IP6. It provides the base structure for the Cal Mag IP6. A number of research studies have shown that when combined in this formula, the effect is complimentary and augmentative. Most IP6 for supplementation comes from rice extract and is formulated as Inositol+Cal Mag IP6.

Inositol+Cal Mag IP6 is available as 'Inocell' from Natural Factors, as 'Cellular Forte' from Phytopharmica, and as 'Cell Forte' from Enzymatic Therapeutics. The formulations of each are identical. The prices are quite different. It is available as capsules which provide a preventative or a maintenance dosage of 2 capsules twice a day. It is also available as powder for therapeutic dosages which range from one scoop daily up to several scoops twice daily.

About the author

Barbara Minton is a school psychologist by trade, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using "alternative" treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

Report Links Increased Cancer Risk to CT Scans

Well this is not a surprise. I have seen this with my own eyes. The doctors and hospitals will push getting a "CT Scan" on people and if you choose not to, you feel you are taking a big risk by not knowing something important. I myself have never had one but I have gotten WAY too many chest x-rays. Apparently, CT Scans are even more dangerous than regular x-rays.

Millions of Americans, especially children, are needlessly getting dangerous radiation from “super X-rays” that raise the risk of cancer and are increasingly used to diagnose medical problems, a new report warns. In a few decades, as many as 2 percent of cancers in the United States may be due to radiation from CT scans given now, according to the report.

The risk from a single CT, or computed tomography, scan to an individual is small. But “we are very concerned about the built-up public health risk over a long period of time,” said Eric J. Hall, who wrote the report with David J. Brenner, a fellow Columbia University medical physicist.

It was published in The New England Journal of Medicine today, and the study was paid for by federal grants. Some experts say that estimate is overly alarming. But they agree with the need to curb these tests particularly in children, who are more susceptible to radiation and more likely to develop cancer from it.

Full article

Here is some information on what a CT Scan is from the people who promote the use of CT Scans because ultimately, it benefits the bottom line of the people at the top of their organizations. This is from a medical site that is part of the medical "complex". Oh here it is - emedicinehealth is owned by WebMD and here is the background on WebMd:

Another theme Baron likes is healthcare. One name he favors is Emdeon Corp., the New Jersey-based company that owns WebMD. That medical website provides a service for corporate employees, answering their health questions as they take over more responsibility for their own medical care from employers burdened by skyrocketing insurance costs. Emdeon is also well poised to capture pharmaceutical dollars as more drug companies start to advertise online, Baron predicts. Emdeon was one of Baron Growth's biggest purchases in the first quarter of 2007.

and this:
The WebMD Health Network reaches more than 40 million visitors a month
through its leading owned and operated health sites that include WebMD Health,
Medscape, MedicineNet, eMedicine, eMedicine Health, RxList and theHeart.org.
SOURCE WebMD

Here is their pro-CT Scan blurb:

CT has revolutionized medicine because it allows doctors to see diseases that, in the past, could often only be found at surgery or at autopsy. CT is noninvasive, safe, and well-tolerated. It provides a highly detailed look at many different parts of the body.

If you are looking at a standard x-ray image or radiograph (such as a chest x-ray), it appears as if you are looking through the body. CT and MRI are similar to each other, but provide a different view of the body than an x-ray does. CT and MRI produce cross-sectional images that appear to open the body up, allowing the doctor to look at it from the inside. MRI uses a magnetic field and radio waves to produce images, while CT uses x-rays to produce images. Plain x-rays are an inexpensive, quick exam and are accurate at diagnosing things such as pneumonia, arthritis, and fractures. CT and MRI better evaluate soft tissues such as the brain, liver, and abdominal organs, as well as look for subtle abnormalities that may not be apparent on regular x-rays.

But then, I find this info:

News Target

New research indicates whole body medical imaging scans (like CT scans) offer little in the way of long-term health benefits and may actually jeopardize patient care. The study indicated that whole-body scans added only about six days of life expectancy for the average 50-year-old male patient. The scans also have a high risk of false-positive findings, offering “absolutely no benefit to the patient,” said researcher Dr. G. Scott Gazelle of Harvard Medical School.

The Budwig Diet for the Cure and Prevention of Cancer

Somehow, in all my research, I never noticed this very simple "cure" discovered by a German physicist in the 50's.. The FIFITES! How is it that this information has been kept from people?? Just so you know, I came across this buried information in the Kevin Trudeau book - "More Natural Cures Revealed" which is a VERY interesting read.

I plan to start consuming this cottage cheese and flaxseed oil mixture every day as recommended by Dr Budwig. She also has some guidelines for eating that would be good to try to follow, for as long as you can. This morning, I mixed some organic flaxseed oil with some organic yogurt and added some stevia for sweetening. I then mixed in some Heritage cereal. It was VERY good! Heritage cereal has quinoa and flaxseed in it. This just might become my daily breakfast for a while!

Click here to view the original article on NaturalNews.com (formerly News Target)

(NewsTarget) Do you think the cure for cancer is yet to be discovered? That’s what the pharmaceutical industry and the pink ribbon folks would like you to think. But this is far from the truth.

One of the least known well-documented cures for cancer was created by a German biochemist and physicist named Johanna Budwig in the 1950’s. Dr. Budwig was a leading authority on fats, oils and nutrition. She believed that cancer, as well as the vast majority of illnesses, was primarily caused by the improper processing of foods and oils, particularly the overheating or boiling of oils. Her patients were those so terminally ill that traditional medical practitioners had given up on them, with many having been given only days or hours to live. She treated these patients with a simple diet based on a combination of flaxseed oil and sulphurated protein.

While studying the blood samples of cancer patients and healthy persons, Dr. Budwig concluded that those with cancer had gross deficiencies of phosphatides and lipoproteins, while those without cancer did not. This deficiency resulted in a reduced oxygen level in the cells. It is well known that cancer cells can thrive only in an anaerobic environment. Her task was then to create a method by which cells could be re-oxygenated. Noting that saturated fats lacked the necessary pi-electron shells necessary to provide the high energy levels needed to effect oxygen transport, she discovered that unsaturated fats were the key in obtaining these pi-electrons. Flaxseed oil provides linoleic and linolenic fatty acids, both rich in high energy producing pi-electron. These fatty acids render the body able to assimilate and transfer immense amounts of oxygen into the cells, allowing for oxidation and detoxification of cellular waste. They also enable the restoration of the lipid membrane of cells so essential to intra and extra cellular balances.

Another significant aspect of Dr. Budwig’s work is her acknowledgement of the connection between the human body and the sun. She demonstrated that when the body is nourished with health giving oils and proteins, the pi-electrons serve as a resonance system for the sun’s energy.

As you can see, the Budwig diet is not really a method of curing cancer in and of itself. It simply helps correct an omega 3 deficiency that, when corrected, allows the body to heal itself. The benefits of this diet are not confined to those battling cancer, but extends to the healing of those with liver dysfunction, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, stomach ulcers, eczema, immune deficiencies, MS, IBS and other diseases. Its value as a preventative cannot be overstated.

There are thousands of documented cases of recovery from cancer with the Budwig diet. For her research and practice, Dr. Budwig was nominated for six Nobel Prizes. She was also subjected to endless vilification and harassment by the orthodox medical establishment, and the German pharmaceutical industry. Publication of her clinical studies and research papers was refused. However, her books are now widely available and can be purchased from Amazon.com and other book sellers. Johanna Budwig lived to be 95 years old.

Ironically, in 2001 Duke University announced a new pilot study they were conducting that suggested that flaxseed oil and a low fat diet can help those with cancer.

The Budwig Diet consists of a flaxseed spread; and a mayonnaise made from flaxseed oil, low fat cottage cheese or yogurt with perhaps the addition of honey, fruit, garlic, cayenne, herbs, fresh squeezed fruit juice, ground flaxseeds, or a little water. One of these mixtures is taken 2 or 3 times daily. Meals consist of nutritionally dense whole foods.

Sugar is forbidden on the diet. This is because the cell takes up glucose (sugar) and gives off lactic acid which creates an acidic environment in the body. Cancer needs an acidic environment to flourish and cannot survive in an alkaline environment. Also forbidden are animal fats, all salad oils including commercial mayonnaise, meats containing chemicals and hormones, margarine, and anything containing preservative (preservative blocks the metabolism of flaxseed oil). Sweetening may be accomplished through the use of fruit juice or honey. Warm tea made of peppermint or rose hips is recommended. Black tea may be taken in the form of one cup per day.

The specifics of the complete Budwig diet may be easily researched online. For people wishing to fit the Budwig approach into today’s lifestyle, particularly as a preventative, it may be easily done by blending ¼ to ½ cup of low fat organic cottage cheese with 2 to 3 tablespoons of high quality flaxseed oil. Stir this mixture quickly until the oil and cheese are well blended and no pools of oil can be seen. Blending is accomplished when you can hold a spoonful upside down for a few moments and the mixture does not fall out. Eat it once or twice a day. Although this may sound unappetizing, it is really easy to get used to. Addition of cumin or dillweed with cayenne pepper makes is yummy.

Here are some other links to follow on this topic:

How to Fight Cancer & Win
Dr Budwig's Healing Protocol (recommended!)
Dr Johanna Budwig

Here is a description of how to use the flaxseed oil and cottage cheese (or yogurt) found on the last link above which is based on the Johanna Budwig protocol:

The following is not meant as medical advice. I am just sharing my own experience for your information.

Here is the experiment that I tried: Get a bottle of flax seed oil that is produced with organic flax seeds, and pressed with the Omegaflo or similar process that protects the oil from oxygen and light. They come in black plastic bottles. The black plastic protects the oil from light and is made so that it will not leach into the oil. The following companies are ones that I know of, but there may be others who make the same quality oil: Barlean's, Arrowhead Mills, Jarrow, Spectrum Natural and Flora.

Every day, use a mixture of Flax seed oil and yogurt or cottage cheese at a ratio of 1 tablespoon of flax seed oil to 4 tablespoons of the yogurt or cottage cheese. You can also use skim milk, (whole milk is even better). The important thing is to use a high quality protein with the oil and mix the yogurt, etc. and flax seed oil very thoroughly because the flax seed oil contains Omega 3 oils, which ninety percent of us are deficient in and our bodies cannot assimilate it properly unless it is first mixed with a high quality protein like milk, cottage cheese, yogurt. or quark, (which is difficult to find in the U.S.).

In the beginning, one should use at least 4 tablespoons of flax seed oil, at the 1-4 ratio, if one is healthy and more if one is not well. In the beginning, I took about six or eight tablespoons. Later, as your body's supply of Omega 3 oil is brought up to par, you should bring it down to a maintenance dose. Most of the sources I've read have recommended maintenance doses of about 1-2 tblspns. per day for women and about 2-4 tablespoons per day for men. But, they all agree that everyone is different so in the final analysis, everyone has to figure it out for oneself.

Omega 3 oil is called an essential oil, because the body can't manufacture it and needs to get it from an outside source. There is another essential oil, Omega 6, which most of us get in abundance, but, after a couple of weeks, one should also take oils that contain Omega 6, which is contained in Safflower oil, pumpkin seed oil and others. Unfortunately, most of the oils you buy, even in health food stores are not made properly and will hurt you more than help you. Get only oils from the companies mentioned above, if you want to play safe.

After you take this oil-protein combination for a day or two, try to get in the sun for at least a half hour or an hour a day and you will feel such a healing effect from the sun that you will be amazed. For the scientific basis of this experiment, read the books of Dr. Johanna Budwig, John Finnegan, Udo Erasmus and others which are listed in the bibliography. I am most impressed by the work of Dr. Johanna Budwig who has used the oil-protein formula as an important element in her methods to cure patients from cancer, heart disease and arthritis. Also, she places her discoveries in a cosmic context which is very inspiring.

The above mentioned experiment is based on sound scientific principles and since they are natural foods which belong in anyone's diet, they are perfectly safe to take. Of course, if you are seriously ill, you should consult a health expert.

Abnormal Proteins In Saliva Identify Breast Cancer, Benign Tumor Cells, Study Finds

Wonderful news! Where do I sign up? This means freedom for all women from the degrading torture test called a "mammogram" that was surely invented by Machiavelli. Not that mammograms have really ever been worth the risks with their high false positive AND false negative rates.

Protein markers in saliva can distinguish women with breast cancer from those with benign tumors and those with healthy cells, according to a study published online in the journal Cancer Investigation, the Houston Chronicle reports. According to the Houston Chronicle, the findings potentially could enable dentists and physicians to detect breast cancer during routine office visits.

For the study, Charles Streckfus, professor of diagnostic sciences at the University of Texas Health Science Center, and colleagues analyzed saliva samples from 30 women -- 10 with benign tumors, 10 with malignant tumors and 10 without tumors. The researchers found 49 proteins that differentiated between the women with tumors and those without. In previous research, Streckfus was able to identify 85% of malignancies with one differing breast cancer protein, a rate he estimates could approach 95% with if additional proteins are analyzed. (Ackerman, Houston Chronicle, 1/10). According to Streckfus, the researchers with additional analysis were able to distinguish between benign and malignant tumors. He added that the extra analysis could help eliminate "false positive results" and allow doctors to determine the next treatment options for women with breast cancer (Taylor, Globe and Mail, 1/11).

Streckfus said he hopes to seek federal approval of a test within five years but acknowledged further research must be conducted, such as validating the study results in hundreds of saliva samples he has collected. He said that he hopes to launch a large, multicenter trial in about two years at the UT M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and the UT Dental Branch. According to the Chronicle, the test will be conducted on a gold-plated chip or lab dish. A laser will then be used to distinguish protein markers in the saliva applied to the chip. According to Streckfus, such a test would be used in conjunction with other tools, including mammograms. There are no blood tests for detecting breast cancer.

Comments

"This will be a noninvasive, quick means of detection," Streckfus said, adding, "With it, dentists will be able to catch cancers before a woman can feel a lump." Streckfus noted that the test could be useful for breast cancer survivors who need to be monitored regularly and also in developing countries were mammography centers are lacking. William Dubinsky -- a biochemist at UT Medical School, who also worked on the study -- said saliva offers tremendous advantages over blood beyond the fact that it is easier to obtain.

Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for American Cancer Society, said the research is clearly in the preliminary stages but added that a saliva test would be a "terrific advance" (Houston Chronicle, 1/10). Damien Walmsley, scientific adviser at the British Dental Association, said, "The mouth itself is a good indicator of an individual's overall health," adding, "In the case of breast cancer, saliva analysis has been used to monitor patient response to chemotherapy or surgical treatment of the disease" (Moss, Scotsman, 1/11).

Henry Scowcroft of the Cancer Research UK said that the finding "is one of many early 'proof-of-principle' results that are published every year" but that the "research only looked at samples from a very small number of people." He added that the "technique might not prove reliable when more people are studied, and there's no data on how effective it might be in practice. So there's a lot more work to be done to find out if this method could ever be used routinely" (BBC News, 1/10).

An abstract of the study is available online.

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

Study Links Dense Breast Tissue To A Higher Risk of Breast Cancer

Once again - misinformation from the allopathic cancer doctors and their handlers. They leave out probably the *most* important piece of information and that is NOT that the dense breasts are what leads to cancer but the fact that because of the dense breasts, they get more mammograms recommended and given, in the relentless quest by the cancer machine to find the cancer that they know is lurking there. The dirty little secret they DON'T want you to know is that the repeated radiation and compression of the breasts will eventually find cancer BECAUSE THEY CREATED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Monday, January 07, 2008 by: Cindie Leonard, MA

(NewsTarget) Nearly 40% of pre-menopausal women experience the symptoms of fibrocystic breast syndrome (this author refuses to label the condition a disease!) A recent study published in the September 1, 2007 issue of Cancer Research, reported findings suggesting a link between dense breast tissue and a higher risk of breast cancer. Studies of this nature produce a great deal of anxiety and alarm for women with fibrocystic breasts.

The study offered complex, scientific explanations supporting the link between dense breast tissue and a higher rate of breast cancer. Yet, the "gene hunters" at the Mayo Clinic overlooked one highly important confound: Women with dense breasts, on average, receive an absurd amount of radiation! An average diagnostic mammogram is not one x-ray, but a series of x-rays, usually two per breast. If a suspicious lump is discovered, there is no limit to the number of repeat x-rays. If a biopsy is performed, most likely there will be follow-up x-rays, or possibly x-rays as part of the biopsy (such as during the procedure of a needle localization). Each view can expose breast tissue to as much as 0.2 rad per x-ray ("rad" is a measurement of the radiation dose). It is important to note that radiation is cumulative. Each rad of 1.0 exposure increases the risk of breast cancer by one percent. Pre-menopausal women have breast tissue which is highly sensitive to radiation, possibly increasing the risk even more.

Whether or not a biopsy is performed, once a suspicious lesion is discovered, it is highly likely that another series of mammograms will be scheduled within six months, sometimes less. With some women, this debacle goes on year after year.

In a recent study involving 5,685 women, published in the July 15, 2000 issue of the International Journal of Cancer, the association between diagnostic radiation exposure and breast cancer was examined. The results of this study conclude that some forms of low-dose radiation may increase the risk of breast cancer. The study also found that women who underwent diagnostic chest x-rays for pneumonia or tuberculosis had more than twice the normal risk of breast cancer.

...

It is unfortunate that these recent studies suggesting the link between dense breast tissue and a higher risk for breast cancer did not include the possibility that dense breasts receive, on average, more radiation due to repeat diagnostic x-rays. Sensitive, delicate breast tissue is routinely zapped with harmful, accumulating radiation and this fact was not mentioned, nor explored in these widely published studies.

In recent years, advances in ultrasound technology allow for an x-ray free, highly effective diagnostic tool. Being that ultrasound is more expensive and time-consuming, the mammogram is the standard for repeat examinations. The appeal of ultrasound would be further bolstered with more conclusive research about the radiation exposure associated with mammography. In conclusion, studies reporting a link between fibrocystic breasts and an increased risk of breast cancer should include (or at least mention) the possibility that the higher cancer risk may be caused by the increased exposure to radiation due to mammography.

About the author
Cindie Leonard has a Master's degree in Counseling Psychology and is a Certified Hypnotherapist.