My Breast Cancer Story

Update: Still Alive and Kickin

2011-07-31T20:13:00.002-04:00

Just wanted to post an update here that I am still around and have had no cancer since I originally found the lump in late 2005. I have some other minor health issues I'm still dealing with - such as weight gain and some problems with recurring staph infections. Overall though I'm pretty happy with my health and can't complain. I just wanted to post an update for anyone who finds this blog and wants to know whether or not I am still around.

Both my parents have died since I first started this blog - my mother of lung cancer. We thought we would send her to the Mississippi clinic that Abraham Cherrix went to - well it turned out that this was a bad decision and my sister and I believe that the clinic ended my Mom's life in the end. I can't remember the name - but I am sure I mentioned it in the blog. My Dad was 85 and lasted three years after my Mom's death, living on his own. We were actually surprised he lasted that long - he was really never happy again after he lost her. It was hard to watch him barely living...

Even my beloved dog Cody died from cancer in 2009 - hemangiosarcoma. I wasn't able to save him which pains me... It's not as easy to save a dog from cancer. I have learned a lot since then - there are many things that can be used to fight cancer naturally - the problem is deciding which one to use because you don't want to use too many at once.

There are some new developments in cancer treatment - namely targeted chemo. Will have to wait and see if it really helps. Seems to me that they are still missing the mark by trying to "kill" a tumor instead of "switch off" the cancer cells or deprive it of something it needs and only the cancer cells need. That seems like the best targeted treatment to me.

In the mean time, I am just trying to figure out my menopausal weight gain issue and learning methods to deal with staph infections. My most recent success in the latter problem is using bentonite clay on the staph (as well as aloe and coconut oil). The clay seems to draw out the toxins from under the skin which is very desirable. If left under the skin it seems to just stay in your system and pop up elsewhere. I even feel that my left hip was close to becoming "septic" - I had pain deep in my hip that did not seem to be related to any muscle. I treated my hip with far infrared heat from FIR lamp and used a Biomat for several hours total and it seemed to have worked. However, the staph then just came out at another spot - under my left arm of all places. So now I am drawing it out with the clay. If it works I'll post an update. So far it does seem to work though!

If you are dealing with a cancer diagnosis - I hope this blog gives you the hope that you so desperately need. I truly believe that a cancer diagnosis does not have to be a death sentence. Once you have decided that it is not, you are that much closer to beating it.

MRI's May Not Be Good Test for Monitoring Breast Cancer

2009-08-24T02:36:00.003-04:00

Up until recently, I supported using MRI tests to monitor for breast cancer, perhaps even getting yearly MRI tests if you find a lump or have a concern and don't want to get a mammogram. Well, now even that test is apparently not without risks.

Just recently I had a pelvic MRI to evaluate my multiple uterine fibroids (8 total and 12 week pregnancy sized uterus). I was hoping to qualify for Exablate. I asked if I could get the MRI without the contrast dye. They said they needed it. I asked that because I had become more concerned about the risks of the contrast dye but I went ahead with the test and nothing bad happened.

However, I started acupuncture treatments recently and the Chinese doctor said my kidneys were "weak".. Could that be from the several MRI tests I have had in the last 5 years? I think I have had 4-5 altogether.. as well as a CAT scan thrown in there...

Well now it seems the value of an MRI test is not really as good as I thought it was and could result in over-aggressive treatment. I am now wondering if, the MRI that triggered my entire slide into breast cancer scare hell, was because of this phenomenon? If so, I feel like I escaped this over treatment... But now you just have to wonder - what is a woman to do to monitor her health???

Excerpt:

A number of randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that women diagnosed with early stage breast cancer who are treated with conservative therapy (consisting of a simple local excision and radiotherapy, if indicated) have the same survival rates as women who are subjected to the major surgery and trauma of total breast removal. However, in recent years the medical industry has pushed for MRIs to be used more and more in the preoperative staging of the affected breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. The reason? MRIs supposedly can detect additional areas of cancer that do not show up on conventional imaging such as mammography and the imaging technique helps surgeons plan for breast tissue removal.

However, after reviewing the data, Dr. Houssami and Dr. Hayes concluded that using the MRI approach to local staging of breast cancer changes surgical management from breast conservation to more radical surgery without evidence of improvement in surgical outcomes or an improved long-term prognosis. In a statement to the media, the researchers called for well-designed, randomized controlled trials to find out any potential benefit of MRIs versus the harm they could be causing, including harm to the quality of life of women who may be having unnecessary radical mastectomies.

Full article

On another note - I can highly recommend finding a doctor trained in Traditional Chinese Medicine. I am getting the herbal treatments and acupuncture from a Chinese doctor and I am really feeling good overall. I sleep better and feel better in general. I've cut down on coffee. Now if I can just see a reduction in my abdominal size to show that the fibroids are shrinking.. I will be a total TCM convert! I'm in week 2 - about 6 treatments of acupuncture and close to 10 days on the Chinese herbs. We shall see!

Health Update

2009-05-16T00:01:00.005-04:00

I realize that I have neglected to check back with this blog and provide health updates but that is because I have not been preoccupied with cancer and caner treatment for a while which is GOOD.

My health is pretty darn good I'd say. It's not perfect, but I'm always adjusting things to work towards optimal health. I still have a small lump in my right breast - and the pucker on the outside to remind me. I don't worry about it now like I used to - I truly believe it has turned to scar tissue.

With that being said I still am careful about what I eat - although not AS careful as I was during my initial all out assault on a breast cancer lump. I still take a good mix of whole food supplements - as many of them as I can which are whole food and not laboratory blends of isolated vitamins.

I recently got what is called a SpectraCell blood test which revealed that I needed more B vitamins, more Vitamin D and more Glutamine. So now I am taking 5000 IU of Vitamin D per day - unless of course I get a few days of sunshine exposure which gives me FREE Vitamin D. Of course I also added B vitamins but I'm not too consistent yet on the Glutamine.

My current health concerns, which are fairly minor compared to breast cancer diagnosis, are uterine fibroids (ugh) which have enlarged my uterus as if I am many weeks pregnant. They do not cause me pain or bleeding - just an enlarged abdomen which is simply annoying. I started taking daily DHEA and some natural supplements that will reduce my estrogen dominance situation which contributes to them. Some of those are Passionflower and Wild Yam. Also licorice. So far (fingers crossed) it seems these are shrinking them but I can only say that from how it feels (and from measuring my abdomen).. I will update in a few months on this as I know there are many women with this problem. I will NOT consider any kind of surgery or cutting, burning etc or even the treatment with the beads blocking up the blood supply. I simply want them gone naturally without any invasive methods period. End of story.

Another health concern is a return of my asthma. I had it growing up and was allergic to animals even though an animal lover which was extremely frustrating. In the 90's I got 5 YEARS of allergy shots - three injections - one for pollens, one for molds and one for dog allergy. During that time I was living with two dogs, because it seemed the dog allergy had already resolved itself.

Well, now it's been almost 15 years since those shots and I'm worried that they have worn off.. don't know. I currently need to use one puff of Serevent before I go to bed at night or I am awakened with difficulty breathing in the night. I have covered my mattress and pillows with mattress covers and I have air cleaners running on high in my bedroom.. none of that seems to matter.

Now that I have lost my large 90 pound dog (Cody - my best bud) to hemangiosarcoma, there will be less dog hair in my house so I will see if his absence makes any difference. I still have a 60 pound shepherd/beagle dog so we shall see.

I don't remember if I posted on the death of my mother last May (2008) to lung cancer also. I have to say it was extremely frustrating to watch her die and not be able to help her. She chose chemotherapy against my advice - but then again she had a large lung cancer tumor and it was difficult for her to breathe so I did not want to mess around with natural treatments that might not be good enough to fight it - and she was not one to change her eating habits - so unless I wanted to force feed her food that was good for her - it wasn't going to work.

I do have to say this however. Because of the Abraham Cherrix story - I convinced my Mom to go to the Mississippi cancer clinic where Abraham Cherrix had gotten treatment after his court settlement. They were supposed to use Immunotherapy. The doctor there is Dr Arnold Smith. It was a big mistake. My parents were not looked after duing their stay and my mother was NOT given Immunotherapy but instead put on more chemo. I believe her stay in Mississippi hastened her death and at this point I would never recommend this clinic. Furthermore, I felt because my parents were so far away we could not help them - they were on their own - even though we were assured by the coordinator that they would take care of my parents - to them they were just another number in the end and their ball was dropped. My Mom developed pneumonia in both lungs and bed sores and of course we did not know of any of this until my sister flew to Mississippi. She was med-evaced to a hospital near our home where she died one week later.

Cancer has touched my life in the last four years more than I care to recount and I feel it is an EPIDEMIC and something needs to be done and there needs to be some investigation into why there is SO MUCH CANCER????

Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Have Increased Cancer Stem Cells

2009-05-15T23:51:00.003-04:00

I'm already against chemotherapy in general unless it is a last resort to wage a battle that one is losing by natural means. There is a HUGE cost to taking toxic chemicals to kill cancer cells and that cost is not communicated to patients when they are put onto chemo. In fact, I'd say WAY too many patients are put on chemo as if they are some kind of vitamins.

Now here comes a scientific article that shows yet another cost of chemotherapy - you may end up with cancer stem cells in your bone marrow AS A RESULT OF CHEMO, which of course means, you will probably be battling even MORE cancer even IF you win the present battle.

ScienceDaily (May 14, 2009) — Breast cancer patients who received chemotherapy prior to surgery had heightened levels of cancer-initiating stem cells in their bone marrow, and the level of such cells correlated to a tumor's lymph node involvement, according to research from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.

...
It's estimated that 30-40 percent of locally advanced breast cancer patients who appear disease-free after neoadjuvant treatment actually harbor undetectable, distant micro-metastasis, explained Reuben.

Reuben describes cancer stem cells as tumor cells found in the bone marrow that are capable of self-renewal, thus a potential catalyst for recurrence and metastasis.

I recently lost my 10 year old golden retriever mix dog to a nasty type of cancer - hemangiosarcoma - and I was tempted to give him chemotherapy - the vet even convinced me that "dogs tolerate chemo better than humans" but then decided against it after a single day of treatment for him. He did die but he was not sick, throwing up and miserable at all during the last two months of his life, after the initial football-sized tumor and his spleen were removed.

At this point I would have felt horrible had I sickened him through his last days with some perverted effort to keep him alive for several more months. I think all of us have to consider this for ourselves and our loved ones before submitting to chemotherapy. It is not a "therapy" in any way at all and is like burning down your house to get rid of roaches. MAYBE you can rebuild the house but then again maybe not. Is it really worth it the risk?

Genes Don't Cause Cancer Study Reveals

2009-01-01T19:29:00.005-05:00

I've already believed this in my heart but had not had any studies to point to. Thankfully now we do. I have CRINGED when I have heard people say they "got hit with the cancer stick" or "it's in my family" and then they make decisions like removing both breasts to avoid what they think is the family disease. That doctors have supported this shocks and dismays me. Would you remove your heart if you had a risk for heart attack in your family? I don't think so!

Read the article from Mike Adams on Natural News and get familiar with the study info so you can blast anyone who repeats the lies of the Cancer Machine that it's "in your genes".. LIARS!!!

Genes Don't Cause Cancer: Exhaustive Study Reveals Genetic Links to be Hogwash

It's a clever line parroted by cancer docs everywhere: Your genes cause cancer, so you'd better get your breasts surgically removed just in case, you know, so you don't ever get cancer.

But as it turns out, the whole genetic link to cancer is 99% hogwash. A study completed at the Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece analyzed hundreds of other studies that claimed to have "discovered" genes that cause cancer, and it found that out of 240 claimed associations between genes and cancer risk, only two genes actually had any significant correlation at all. (That's less than one percent, if you're keeping track.)

Put another way, over 99% of the claims about genes causing cancer don't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

So what are they, then? Scare tactics, of course. By blaming genes for disease, doctors can disempower patients and convince them that they have no control over their own health.

Well said Mike - so many people want to believe that their doctors have their best interests in mind. I wish I could believe that.

It also diminishes the importance of avoiding smoking, boosting vitamin D consumption, increasing exercise and engaging in other smart lifestyle improvements that directly reduce cancer risk. When people are convinced they're going to get cancer anyway ("It's in your genes!"), they tend to stop taking care of their health, giving in to the deterministic brainwashing that's been fed to them by the profit-driven cancer industry.

It's no surprise, of course, that real science shows the cancer gene claims to be 99% junk science. The cancer industry has never been interested in real science anyway: It's run almost entirely on the quest for corporate profits and the ongoing use of fear mongering tactics such as scaring women into submitting to chemotherapy by using mammography equipment that routinely produces false positives.

Even the whole cancer screening process is actually part of the cancer recruiting scam: Since mammograms emit cancer-causing radiation, a woman who undergoes mammography on a regular basis inevitably ends up with cancer tumors that were caused by the mammograms! Thus, the very process of screening for cancer causes cancer!

And then, when they find a tumor in your breast, they claim, "There's nothing you could have done about it. You had the gene for breast cancer."

Nonsense. Pure quackery. Criminal quackery, even.

The truth is that you can be free of cancer regardless of your genetic code, because it is the expression of those genes that matters. And guess what controls the expression of your genes? Your nutrition, diet, lifestyle choices and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals in foods, drugs, cosmetics and personal care products.

In other words, you have probably 99% control over whether you get cancer or not. But the corrupt cancer industry wants you to think you actually have zero control.

What a con.

Lymphedema More Common Than You Think After Breast Cancer Treatment

2008-12-30T14:05:00.004-05:00

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

2008-12-26T11:51:00.002-05:00

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

2008-09-03T23:24:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-09T00:57:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-08T23:16:00.003-04:00

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

2008-02-27T15:54:00.002-05:00

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

2008-01-29T12:57:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-27T09:28:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-16T01:21:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-07T16:27:00.000-05:00

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.

Breast Cancer Psychotherapist in the UK shares her own experience with breast cancer

2007-11-11T00:20:00.000-05:00

It's stories like these that make me just want to scream what I have learned so that perhaps a few more women can be spared the trauma of "conventional" breast cancer treatments. In a few words, conventional treatments are BARBARIC and they DON'T WORK. In EXTREME cases, surgery or chemo might be necessary as a last resort but until then, the absolutely ideal thing to do is to BOOST YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM and that involves more than just taking vitamins or eating right, washing your hands more etc. It is an attitude change, a lifestyle change.. it is putting your own health first and taking care of your body like never before. There are tons of examples of natural cures for cancer. Not all of them work for everyone. But regardless, chemo and radiation are harmful and yes they might kill the cancer but not before they almost kill YOU.

Did you ever wonder why it seems the first course of action recommended in breast cancer is to see a BREAST SURGEON? Why not an oncologist? Do you know I never ONCE met with an oncologist during my stint with "conventional" cancer diagnosis and it was NEVER RECOMMENDED? By the time I might have been ready for that, I was already convinced an oncologist did not know much more than I did about cancer, so I skipped it and continued with my holistic healing path.

Breast cancer: therapist on the other side
Counseling women with breast cancer was Cordelia Galgut's speciality but she was unprepared for the strength of emotion when it was diagnosed in her

I didn’t have a diagnosis yet but I could see on the screen that I was in big trouble. The radiologist who was taking an ultrasound scan of my right breast looked deadpan. I asked: “Is it serious?” “At least it’s not lung cancer,” she replied. What? I presumed she was confirming indirectly that she thought it was cancer, but I was stunned by her comment.
Summoning up the courage to speak again, I asked what she could see. “Are you a medical doctor or a scientist?” she responded, as if that would answer my question, and then told me that I’d have to have a biopsy. When I said I wanted to know more, I was told that this was not possible.
These dreadful moments three years ago, when I first learnt, in my late-forties, that I had breast cancer, began a voyage of discovery. As a counsellor and psychotherapist helping women with breast cancer, I’d imagined that I could understand well enough what they were going through. In fact, I didn’t have a clue. Having breast cancer changed what I said to women with breast cancer for good.
Throughout my experiences over the past three years I’ve found my “trained psychologist brain” to be in conflict with my “breast cancer-sufferer brain” because the stuff I was taught about mental processes and my experiences as a cancer patient have often been contradictory.
After my biopsy, my doctor confirmed that the mass on the scan looked like cancer. “Am I going to die?” I asked. She looked blank and changed the subject. This made me feel I’d been wrong to ask her. It also made me panicky. I now realise that such questions are very common among women who have breast cancer diagnosed, so the doctor must have heard them plenty of times. Though nobody would have thought so from her reaction.
Things went from bad to worse. I phoned for the results of the biopsy and got a nurse, who avoided my questions several times until, reluctantly, she said: “Yes, it’s cancer.” That was actually a relief. Once I knew, I could start to face the future. After the surgery to remove the tumour, the surgeon told me that I had been “naughty” for asking questions, making a fuss and saying how I was feeling about what was happening to me.
I felt I wasn’t doing cancer “properly”
One of the key lessons I have learnt is that health professionals simply don’t accept extreme emotional reactions in the face of cancer. The vast majority of people I have met since my breast cancer was diagnosed struggle to realise that it is normal to respond emotionally, even negatively. I have had to put up with so many comments that have left me feeling very alone, such as: “You must be more positive, or your cancer will come back!” There’s no research evidence to back this up, by the way. Someone else said: “Don’t dwell on it; it’s not doing you any good.” I shouted back: “Well, you try it if you think it’s so bloody easy!”
Comments such as these make women feel they are not doing breast cancer “properly”. And it all adds to the distress and emotional fallout of what has happened.
As a psychotherapist supporting women with the disease, I realise that the fear of getting breast cancer had stopped me from really listening to what women were telling me about what they felt and what they were going through. Also, my psychological training had taught me that, after extreme trauma, people would go through a variety of stages, from shock to acceptance, in about a year or so.
It’s clear to me now that it is wrong to expect people with breast cancer to behave like people with other types of trauma.
There is a very complex emotional response in women, simply because the cancer affects the breasts, which are laden with sexual and other significances. One woman said to me: “I’ve had thyroid cancer and breast cancer, and it’s different. It affects you in a different way because your breasts are part of your femininity.”
Treatments for breast cancer are harsh and it has been easy for me to feel that my identity as a woman has been under attack.
In May 2004 I was told that I had one small hormone-sensitive tumour in my right breast. The following November I was told that I had something similar in the left breast. The second tumour had probably been there at the time of my first diagnosis, but my left breast had not been scanned at the time. So I had surgery on both breasts and have large scars on them, a constant reminder of what I have been through. So is the skin damage and loss of sensation I have suffered as a result of the two rounds of radiotherapy I had for 12 weeks after surgery.
Physically, it was hard, but I had expected that. It was my emotional response to the radiotherapy that knocked me sideways. Subsequently, a number of women have told me that they have found radiotherapy harder than chemotherapy. It perhaps stems from the vulnerable position you have to adopt on the treatment table; naked from the waist up.
After several weeks of radiotherapy, I remember joking that I was so used to exposing my breasts in public that I’d have to watch it in case I inadvertently got them out in Waitrose. The humour was self-protective, of course, belying a deep upset at what I was going through.
I can’t recapture my peace of mind
Three-and-a-half years on, I have a good prognosis, but I’m still suffering emotional fallout. Thankfully, I have had no recurrence of the disease to date, but I still dread the scans. People say: “Just get on with your life. Don’t think about it.” But I cannot recapture the peace of mind I had before cancer.
Knowing what I know now, I work very differently, as a psychotherapist, with women with breast cancer. I’m more open to what women are telling me and no longer pay much attention to what my training taught me about what women should be feeling at different stages.
If there’s one thing I wish people had said to me during my breast cancer experience, it is: “The way you’re feeling is perfectly normal. It’s not just going to go away. You’re not doing breast cancer wrong. Why wouldn’t you feel like this?” These words would have been enormously supportive. They’re the ones I try to offer my patients whenever I can.
Dr Cordelia Galgut is a senior accredited counsellor and psychotherapist
Breast cancer in numbers
Over 100 women a day in the UK are told that they have breast cancer
8 out of 10 survive beyond five years
One third of cancer patients (all types of cancer) develop significant problems coping with diagnosis and treatment
14% of cancer patients seek counselling or support groups after diagnosis
29% of breast cancer sufferers adopt a fighting spirit
22% of breast cancer sufferers are engulfed by feelings of hopelessness
Source: Cancer Research UK; The Lancet; Journal of the National Cancer Institute; Oncology Issues

New drug target to battle breast cancer: study

2007-11-09T11:56:00.000-05:00

Interesting news about targeted treatments for breast cancer. Targeted is always better than some kind of systemic nuclear bomb kind of approach. The more you can target JUST the tumor, the better off all patients will be. Here is more info on angiogenesis

Interestingly enough, it has been found that megadoses of Vitamin C actually have an antiangiogenic effect and certainly is less toxic than just about any synthetic "drug". It may explain why large doses of Vitamin C seem to work in the fight against cancer. If I were currently fighting cancer, I would be taking large doses of Vitamin C or considering intravenous Vitamin C. I don't think it's recommended to remain on large doses of Vitamin C indefinitely however so you should find a naturopath or holistic practitioner who can guide you on this kind of treatment.

After some more digging, I found that there is one drug that one should avoid that are targeting angiogenesis and that drug is Avastin. Read more about why I say that here

Here is the lead article on limiting angiogenesis, which I believe is a good thing to do in fighting cancer. However I don't believe that only drugs can provide that solution. More on this after the article.

CHICAGO (AFP) — Researchers have identified a new target for drugs to help treat the most common form of breast cancer in the developing world, a study released Thursday said.
The target is a molecular "switch" in the protein-making machinery of the cancer cell that enables a tumor to aggressively develop its own blood supply.
Women with what is called locally advanced breast cancer can develop tumors that grow anywhere from 2 centimeters to 10 centimeters in diameter.
The tumors are unusually large in many cases -- they are often the size of a plum by the time they are diagnosed -- due to the extremely dense network of blood vessels feeding them oxygen and nutrients.
"Our study shows that an unusual molecular switch occurs that is essential for the development of these large tumors. We think that this switch could be a target for new therapies," said Robert Schneider, professor of molecular pathogenesis at New York University School of Medicine.
In a paper in the journal Molecular Cell, Schneider and colleagues at New York University School of Medicine describe how two proteins (4E-BP1 and eIF4G) which are present at elevated levels in locally advanced breast cancer cells selectively increase the action of certain messenger, or mRNA, molecules.
The effect of that process is to increase several fold the production of certain growth factors that drive tumor angiogenesis -- the formation of the tumor's own blood vessels.
"The switch gives us the ability to shut off production of growth factors in the tumor at their source," said Schneider.
He said several experimental drugs were in development that would target the "switch," with a view to curbing its growth.
If the drugs are shown to be successful in clinical trials, they could eventually be combined with a cocktail of chemotherapy drugs to eliminate the malignancy.
"This research opens new avenues for the development of targeted approaches in the treatment of one of the most common lethal forms of breast cancer worldwide," said Silvia Formenti, a co-author and professor of radiation oncology at NYU School of Medicine.
The researchers are also hopeful that the two proteins that are over-expressed or super abundant in locally advanced breast cancer cells could serve as a biomarker for this type of cancer, making it easier to screen for.
Early indications are that it is a reliable guide to the presence of this cancer 85 percent of the time, Schneider said.
Locally advanced breast cancer accounts for about 50 percent of breast cancer cases in developing nations. Patients often have a high level of treatment failure because the cancer is so far advanced by the time it is detected.

Here is an excerpt from the News Target article on angiogenesis:

Let me lay this to you straight: you can get far more powerful anti-angiogenesis "drugs" by simply drinking broccoli juice. If you need something more powerful, take graviola tincture, which has been shown to be 10,000 times more effective than chemotherapy at shrinking tumors. If that's still not enough, eat ten grams of chlorella and spirulina each day.

And here is more from my favorite health nut, Mike Adams, in the same article above, explaining why I am suspicious and critical of the mainstream Cancer docs and drugs:

Want to know what kind of corruption really goes on in the cancer industry and the FDA? Read Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss. Still not convinced? Check out Innocent Casualties by Elaine Feuer.

Be informed as much as possible if you find yourself in the grips of the "cancer industry". I find myself in that position now, not for myself, but for my mother, who it is believed has a version of Pancoast's Apical Lung Cancer. Tests are still being conducted but you better believe I'm trying to steer her AWAY from the mainstream treatments as much as possible. The hard part is getting to the place where she has faith in me and my advice.. After all, I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who successfully fought breast cancer without chemo, radiation or surgery...

Woman Claims Doctor 'Spilled' Cancerous Tissue into Stomach

2007-09-20T14:22:00.000-04:00

It's nice to see that this kind of information is getting out to the public. It's a known fact that MOST cancer surgeries involve "tumor spill" but you never hear about it from your doctors unless you really press them on it. With that being said - surgery is NEVER without risk although tumor removal is portrayed as some kind of "answer" to the problem. This is also why they often treat the surgical site with radiation after surgery because they KNOW the chance is very high that some cancer cells were "spilled" into the area during removal.

THIS is why I did not choose surgery from my breast cancer lump. I prefer to let my body handle the problem. There are cases when surgery is the ONLY option though and to anyone who is in that situation I would advise being honest with yourself about the spill problem and don't treat the surgery as a neat and clean cancer removal operation.

Any time you are dealing with cancerous tumors you *must* improve your immune system to fight it and you as healer are the most important factor in your healing - not some doctor with a scalpel. Improving your immune system involves more than just taking vitamins. It is a LIFESTYLE change and one that puts your health above all else. It involves listening to your body and giving it what it needs in the way of sleep, exercise, play, food etc...

DES MOINES, Iowa — A woman is suing her gynecologist for allegedly not telling her that he accidentally cut open a tumor he removed from her ovary, spilling cancerous tissue in her abdomen and causing her cancer to spread.

The lawsuit, filed in Polk County District Court by Lavonne Schroeter, alleges that Dr. Curtis Hoegh's negligence during and after the operation "will cause her premature death." The lawsuit also names his employer, Iowa Health Physicians and Clinics, as a defendant.

The 53-year-old Schroeter says the Des Moines doctor removed her tumor in 2002, but he never mentioned it was cancerous or discussed any mishaps during surgery. However, Hoegh had Schroeter undergo an electronic scan after a blood test raised concerns three years later, and more growths were found.

Another surgeon removed several cancerous tumors and prescribed medication, but the cancer continued to spread, the lawsuit states. Last year, a doctor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told her that Hoegh had accidentally cut into her tumor and caused the spread of the cancer, which is terminal but treatable, according to the lawsuit.

Schroeter's lawyer, Roxanne Conlin of Des Moines, says the Mayo doctor found out about the mistake by reading her client's medical records.

Hoegh's "negligence was a proximate cause of injuries and damages to (Schroeter)," the lawsuit states.

Dr. Mark Barnhill, the group's medical director, says Hoegh and the clinic had not been served with the legal papers and could not comment on the allegations.

In a brief statement, Barnhill called Hoegh "a competent and caring physician who has served our community for 20 years."

Health update!

2007-08-22T13:58:00.000-04:00

It's been about five months since I got the good news on my last MRI stating that the lump was "scar tissue" and no longer considered a threat. I have loosened some of my health regimens a bit as a result of feeling that I have beaten the threat, although I still rarely eat fast food or desserts or add sugar to things in general.

I wanted to share some other things that I did that I did not post on, during my battle to fight breast cancer. I got behind in posting updates about different things I tried so I'll try to catch up here so that others might be able to benefit.

I will never know which thing worked, perhaps all of them are necessary. If faced with cancer again, I would employ the same methods.

Some of the more recent "therapies" I tried were:

Far Infrared Mineral Lamp

Here are some of the effects of the lamp

Raises the temperature in tissues
Expands capillary vessels vRejuvenates cells
Promotes blood circulation
Helps move toxins from cells
Improves Lymphatic system functions

I used it primarily because I learned that cancer cells cannot dissipate heat so I decided that this lamp might actually cause cell death for the cancer cells by heating them - this lamp penetrates very deeply. I used visualization while lying under the lamp as well - I pictured the heat killing the cancer cells. I used this lamp for about 20 minutes a day at least three times a week.

Therapeutic Massage

I also started visiting a holistic massage therapist in December of 2006 on a regular basis - at least twice a month. I also met with her in between the massages to help assess my lifestyle also and among some of the changes she helped me make (although I continue to work on these) were getting more sleep and sleeping earlier. I am a night owl so I constantly fight against staying up till the wee hours and then sleeping till mid morning. For a month or two, I actually got to bed before midnight on most nights. She helped me make it more of a habit to eat vegetables because even though I knew I *should* eat more vegetables, I often did not and instead relied on Juice Plus to tide me over. Ultimately, Juice Plus is great but not a total substitute for eating vegetables and the closer to raw the better.

Mini Trampouline aka Rebounding

I purchased a Needak mini trampouline also and started using it about three times a week. I used it simply although there are some fancy moves you can make and the one I bought provided a manual for those. I simply put on dance music and basically jogged to the music on it and occasionally did some dancing on it. I added hand and leg weights at times. The benefits of jumping on a mini trampouline are as follows:

From HealingDaily.com

The rebounding motion stimulates all internal organs, moves the cerebral-spinal fluid, and is beneficial for the intestines. Many immune cells such as T-lymphocytes and macrophages are self-propelled through amebic action. These cells contain molecules identical to those in muscle tissue.

All cells in the body become stronger in response to the increased "G force" during rebounding, and this cellular exercise results in the self-propelled immune cells being up to 5 times more active. These immune cells are responsible for eating viruses, bacteria and even cancer cells, so it is good that they be active. Jumping on a mini-trampoline directly strengthens the immune system, so it's a big deal!

When the outer coating of cancer cells has been dissolved by the enzymes trypsin and chymotrypsin, the immune cells attack the cancer cells. Therefore, supplementing one's healing diet with enzymes, combined with rebound exercise are a useful way to combat cancer.

More proof Vitamin D is essential to fighting cancer

2007-06-08T21:21:00.000-04:00

I know I haven't updated this blog as much lately but now and then I find articles like this one that I absolutely feel I must post about because it is so important! Personally, I now take 2000 IU of Vitamin D3 every day and I try to get a dose of sunshine when I can without sunblock. I will not be using sunblock ever again. I will just use shade or an umbrella to reduce my doses of sun so that I don't get burned. I also take a Calcium Magnesium supplement in the 1000 - 500 mg ratio. I believe it is Calcium Citrate as well..

New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer. This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer drug known to modern science.

The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily) while another group was given placebo. Over four year, the group receiving the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in cancers. Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation. (The full press release of this study is included below. It provides more details about the findings.)

Note that these astonishing effects were achieved on what many nutritionists consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered, and the quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have been (it was probably calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate, aspartate or similar forms). What does all this mean? It means that if you take high-quality calcium supplements and get lots of natural sunlight exposure or take premium vitamin D supplements (such as those made from fish oil), you could easily have a greater reduction than the 77 percent reduction recorded in this study.

Please go here to view the full article - well worth it!

American College of Physicians warns women in their 40s about dangers of mammograms

2007-05-14T20:58:00.000-04:00

Well.. it's nice to see the conventional medical community FINALLY coming out and saying what most ALTERNATIVE doctors have been saying all along about mammograms. I try to correct EVERYONE I talk to about the dangers of annual mammograms - so many have been brainwashed for years that this is what women should do. I have never felt an annual dose of radiation was a good thing but I thought EVEN LESS of it once I found out they only detect calcifications and in MY case I did not have calcifications so it gave ZERO info about my particular breast lump, which a later MRI indicated was something to worry about. Now that I have been "cleared" and they are saying it is scar tissue, one has to wonder whether I ever had anything to worry about.. but I guess I'll never know and that is fine.

The statistics have been that women who get an annual mammogram INCREASE their cancer risk by 2% each year so after 10 years an obedient woman who got her annual mammograms has increased her risk for getting cancer by 20%. No thanks!

Many alternatives are now available - from the AMAS blood test to Thermography and other forms of light testing, a Breast MRI (which all insurance SHOULD allow but don't for annual purposes) etc.

The article:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American College of Physicians has recommended women in their 40s consult with their doctors before undergoing routine annual mammography screening. An expert panel from the American College of Physicians (ACP), which represents 120,000 internists, made this recommendation in the April 3rd issue of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

After reviewing 117 studies conducted between 1966 and 2005, the panel found the data on mammography screening for women in their 40s are so unclear that the effectiveness of reducing breast cancer death could be either 15 percent or "...nearly zero."

The panel pointed out that benefits must be weighed against the harmful effects of mammograms, including exposure to radiation and unnecessary biopsies, surgery, and chemotherapy.

Dr. Amir Qaseem, lead author of the ACP guidelines, stated "It is important to tailor the decision of screening mammography by discussing the benefits and risks with a woman, addressing her concerns, and making it a joint decision between her and her physician." The ACP noted cancer risk varies from woman to woman, and decisions about annual mammography screenings are best made on a case-by-case basis.

The ACP pointed out for women who have a known high risk of breast cancer (family history or early menarche, for example) annual screenings are appropriate.

The group is not opposed to mammography, but rather questions the efficacy of annual mammography exams commencing at age 40. "We agree that mammography can save lives," said Douglas K. Owens of Stanford University, who chaired the committee that wrote the guidelines, "But there are also potential harms. We don't think the evidence supports a blanket recommendation."

The dangers of mammography are recognized in the medical field. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, "Screening mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer for pre-menopausal women. The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray. The pre-menopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening. These risks are even greater for younger women subject to 'baseline screening.'"

The coalition reports women who carry the A-T gene are especially prone to risk from early mammography screening: "Radiation risks are some four-fold greater for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers diagnosed annually."

"Mammography is used primarily as a tool to recruit new patients into conventional cancer treatments, regardless of whether they would actually benefit from such treatments," said Mike Adams, author of Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them. "The breast cancer industry harms ten women for every one it helps. It is an industry of greed, profits, and scare tactics," Adams added.

At the heart of the current blanket recommendations to begin annual mammography exams at age 40 is the American Cancer Society (ACS). Robert A. Smith, director of cancer screening at the ACS, responded to the new recommendations stating, "The danger here is that some women will elect not to get screened. Mammography is the single most effective way of finding breast cancer early, and when we find breast cancer early, women have the greatest chance of successful treatment." Just last month the ACS advised women who are at a perceived "high risk" of breast cancer to also undergo annual MRIs.

Resources: http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/dangers.htm

Another reason not to get sentinel node lymph biopsy

2007-05-09T00:06:00.000-04:00

An alternative to the sentinel node lymph biopsy is to get a PEM (Pet Scan Mammogram) and I am so thankful that I did NOT get the lymph biopsy that they assured me was very low risk for edema. Hmmmph

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine beating breast cancer only to find out you're health problems may have just begun.

That's exactly what many women are dealing with, but there is good news.A new study has found a majority of those survivors face a new battle with lymph edema, which they'll fight it the rest of their lives.

When Lori Elgin finally beat breast cancer, she dreamed of carefree times with her family.She said she never thought dealing with the lymph edema that followed would be an even more challenging experience than the cancer."There's no cure for the lymph edema," said Elgin. "I mean, you're stuck with it. You just have to learn to manage it as well as possible."For Elgin, that means wearing a compression sleeve and glove on her right arm to help manage the constant and painful swelling,

The problem is often caused during surgery or radiation. Wherever lymph nodes are removed, lymphatic fluid can't drain. It accumulates and causes swelling. A new three-year study published in the Journal of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention revealed how big the lymph edema problem really is."Over half of the women had experienced swelling sometime during the three years," said author Dr. Electra Paskett.

That's nearly seven times as many women as shown in some previous studies.Paskett, a breast cancer survivor, said she knows firsthand how debilitating the swelling can be."We're not supposed to lift anything very heavy," said Paskett. "Should avoid any repetitive action, repetitive motion like cleaning your house, vacuuming, things like that. So a lot of these things really affect a woman's life."Even more troubling is the psychological impact. There is no cure for lymph edema, only sleeves and medicines for pain and swelling.Besides compression sleeves and medications, many women get regular arm and hand massages to help ease their swelling. But Paskett said something more needs to be done.With so many women surviving breast cancer, she'd like to see more insurance companies pay for such therapy. And she hopes more scientists will focus on developing cures for the condition to preserve a better quality of life for cancer survivors.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion - the risk of edema is not an acceptable risk. I don't even care if cancer IS found in the lymph nodes. Treat it with boosting your immune system, changing your diet by eliminating chemicals and processed sweets and foods and as a LAST resort using radiation or chemo after surgery when possible.

I am living proof that you don't have to burn, cut or poison to treat breast cancer. You just have to heed your body's call to change up a lot of what you are doing in your daily life and do it for good....

Best news in two years!

2007-04-11T10:10:00.000-04:00

Just received the official report back from my recent MRI on March 30th, 2007 and it said "No change in the appearance of the spiculated mass in the medial aspect of the right breast when compared to the prior studies from 2006" and then this most important sentence:

"The mass and its spiculation are compatible with the presence of a neoplasm but lack of interval growth and the progressive bright enhancement pattern favor SCAR TISSUE. There are no other suspicious finding seen in either breast"

To say that I had an emotional release from 2 years of holding my breath over this lump is an understatement. I actually received the voicemail message last night from my doctor saying "no problems at all" and of course I was surprised and shocked and happy to hear that but I had seen the MRI myself and I saw the lump still there.. it did not appear larger which I thought was good but I figured.. well it's still there...

So.. for me.. this is a victory of huge proportions and should be encouraging for all who are told they have cancer. You don't always have to take the toxic treatments. I will not stop with my new diet and lifestyle EVER because this proves that my body can handle cancer and can recover from cancer (if it ever WAS cancer in the first place)

My health regimen basically included mostly whole foods, no microwaving, no teflon, no processed food (canned or frozen) unless it is 100% organic such as Amy's. I take Juice Plus and many other whole food supplements. I take 1200 iu Vitamin D3 per day. I have been taking Artemisinin and also Laetrile but not large amounts in any way.. just regular intake. I really think the loss of 20 pounds of excess weight was a big factor and the diet that got me there is also one that discourages cancer - less meat, practically NO sugar unless from sweet vegetables. Only the very occasional desert and a small amount when I need to eat a birthday cake. I refuse most candy or deserts, never add sugar to anything and use Stevia instead.

I recently added Olive Leaf Extract which is a terrific natural antibiotic and natural anti-viral.

So ... hoping my story can encourage others to take control of their own health and don't blindly trust the conventional medicine. They have their place but it is not always the place to go FIRST. Improve your health FIRST - then if you still need help then conventional medicine may be the next step. Never choose the toxic treatments FIRST. Become educated about your health - you are your best doctor.

Stopping Breast Cancer Tumors from Spreading

2007-04-09T10:13:00.000-04:00

I find this study very interesting indeed - especially the part about standard treatments doing more harm than good.. umm.. YEAH.. we need to see more info on that get to the public at large. I believe chemo and/or radiation should only be used as a last resort but instead we see both being used ROUTINELY and that is the travesty in modern cancer treatment. First treatment option should ALWAYS be to correct the underlying imbalance through nutrition and stress reduction - lifestyle changes.

Stopping Breast Cancer Tumors From Spreading
Ivanhoe Newswire

By Betsy Lievense, Ivanhoe Health Correspondent

ORLANDO, Fla. (Ivanhoe Newswire) -- Previous studies have shown chemotherapy and radiation can sometimes do more harm than good for cancer patients as treatments have been linked to tumor spread. Now, researchers at Vanderbilt University are working hard to develop neutralizing antibodies that could stop treatment-induced tumors in their tracks.

In order to determine the relationship between anti-cancer treatments and tumor spread, researchers at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., studied the effects of radiation and a chemotherapeutic drug called doxorubicin on mice. Study authors report both of these treatments led to two-fold increases in transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta levels as well as an increase in cancer cell proliferation and lung metastases. In subsequent trials, researchers administered a TGF-beta-neutralizing antibody into mice prior to radiation. They found irradiated mice treated with TGF-beta antibodies had fewer tumors after therapy than their antibody-free counterparts, which means TGF-beta could play a key role in tumor spread.

"In my opinion, the overwhelming evidence is in established tumors, tumors we can see in an X-ray, TGF-beta is, in general, a tumor promoter," Carlos Arteaga, M.D., a professor of medicine and cancer biology and the director of the breast cancer program at the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., told Ivanhoe. "Before a cell turns into a cancer cell, TGF-beta is probably a heck of a tumor suppressor, but we're talking about patients with established tumors or cancers. TGF beta and other growth factors may act as a survival factor to [pre-established] tumor cells and inadvertently protect them."

Dr. Arteaga said TGF-beta inhibitors could represent a promising solution to tumor metastases, but more clinical research is necessary to determine the toxicity, dosage and potential combinations of TGF-beta antibodies. "TGF-beta inhibitors are currently in a very early phase of development, not in therapeutic studies," he said. Dr. Arteaga also said he hopes the results of this study will lead to alternative treatment options for cancer patients.

This article was reported by Ivanhoe.com, which offers Medical Alerts by e-mail every day of the week. To subscribe, click on: http://www.ivanhoe.com/newsalert/.

SOURCE: Ivanhoe interview with Carlos Arteaga, M.D.; The Journal of Clinical Investigation, published online April 5, 2007

Non-patented chemotherapy alternative drug may provide cheap chemical cure for cancer

2007-02-01T22:25:00.000-05:00

From News Target.. this is pretty exciting news.. and I will keep a close eye on developments

A cheap, simple and safe drug currently being used to treat rare metabolic disorders may be the golden ticket to fighting certain cancers, a Canadian study says. Since it is non-patented, it could be produced on a mass scale by multiple suppliers.

The drug is called Dichloroacetate, or DCA, and it can repair damage to mitochondria affected by cancer, creating large decreases in cancerous tumors. Positive results from the drug were shown in both animal model tests and test tubes. It also has been tested on genetically cultured human cells.

Most importantly, it can kill cancerous cells, including the often unstoppable lung cancer, without affecting other healthy cells and tissues, which differs DCA from many chemotherapies.

Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada did the tests, finding that in addition to fighting lung cancer, DCA can also decimate brain and breast cancer.

DCA utilizes the way cancer cells energize themselves and uses that to work against the cancerous growth. A cancer cell will often eat sugars in the cell, using a process called glycolysis. Previous consensus among scientists was that cancer cells use glycolysis to stay alive because the mitochondria had been damaged beyond functioning levels.

The researchers in Edmonton found that DCA reawakens mitochondria, which holds a secondary function: the ability to tell abnormal cells to self-destruct. Without this self-destruct mode being active, abnormal cancerous cells have the ability to be “immortal,” and increase over time because they are not dying like regular cells. Initial studies show that DCA reverses this.

The next move for the study is to do clinical tests using DCA in patients with cancer, reported the Chinese web site People’s Daily Online. These tests may need to be paid for by charities, universities and government agencies, as pharmaceutical are not likely to support an unpatented medicine because they cannot profit from it, the magazine New Scientist reported in its January issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information on DCA can be found here

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update on my health - I have lost 17 pounds since starting on my healthier diet in late July and by avoiding artificial sweeteners or anything artificial in my food for that matter. I continue to drink a good amount of water as well. This week my blood was sent to a Florida laboratory where Dr Schandl will give it the full cancer profile review. Info about the lab is here

I also asked them to do a breast cancer marker test. I hope to have the results in a day or so.

The lump is still palpable but my health is great otherwise. I will be going for a new MRI in the next month to see if the size has changed at all.

I have been seeing a holistic counselor who is helping me adopt some healthier habits and be more regular with my sleeping and eating.. getting to bed earlier etc. I also get therapeutic massages every other week now.

I have signed onto the Quantum Prayer System at http://energeticbalancing.us
and got my first "analysis" this week which was pretty amazing and seemed extremely accurate as far as pinpointing the top 12 stressors in my life according to energy balance. It pinpointed areas such as my right shoulder that have been causing me trouble for several months... not sure how they did it but I was quite pleasantly surprised at how accurate it seemed. Something on the chart called "reproductive canceroid" was on that list. I did not give them any health history - just name, address, birthdate, place of birth and photo of my face only.

What exactly is 714X?

2006-12-21T16:19:00.000-05:00

Just when I thought I had found all the alternative cancer treatments, I stumble on information about 714X and it is interesting indeed.

Please see the following links for more information

http://www.billybest.net/
http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/1june01/714x.htm
RedOrbit.com

I also picked up one of Kevin Trudeau's books - "The Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About" Despite the flagrant criticism of Kevin Trudeau by the mainstream medical people I think his message and information is quite valid. It syncs with others in the alternative health field and contains much common sense relating to health.. common sense that has been lost on most of us today in this pill-popping, junk food eating world we live in.

Breast Cancer Stem Cells Seem to Survive Radiation Therapy

2006-12-20T01:18:00.001-05:00

Oh my God can I say "I told you so?" Can I? Please?

TUESDAY, Dec. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Breast cancer stem cells, a type of cell that scientists have recently discovered is difficult to kill, may be especially resistant to radiation therapy, a new study suggests.

In fact, the radiation can even increase the growth of these stubborn stem cells, report researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine.

"This population of stem cells is more radiation-resistant than are non-stem cells," said Dr. Frank Pajonk, an assistant adjunct professor of radiation oncology at UCLA and corresponding author on the study. "We are the first to report this."

--------------------
Yet I read this VERY thing in several books - most notably the World Without Cancer book by G Edward Griffin.. so they are NOT the first to report this. Bah humbug.. They are the first CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE place to report this.. I'll give them that.. I think also Dr Lorraine Day said this kind of thing. This is why after radiation they think it was successful when the tumor *shrinks* but what has been eliminated may only be the normal cells and the cancer cells live on in the smaller now exposed mass. The tumor capsule that is killed by radiation is actually protecting the body from the cancer! And then they go and remove that protection. Then, of course months later, the person comes back with an even worse case of cancer and a few OTHER side effects from the radiation.
---------------------------------------

When Pajonk's team exposed the cells to a higher dose of 3 Gray, every day for five days, then stopped the treatment before what would be considered a full round, the proportion of stem cells actually increased.
-----------------------

Breast cancer drop tied to hormones

2006-12-15T14:54:00.000-05:00

Good news IF you were someone who stopped taking or never took hormones for menopause.
Seems they did not really test the use of hormones that well to me. .but to be fair, it is hard to test such a long term effect of hormones too. I just feel many of us are doing the testing on these drugs and therapies and I think most people are unaware of how much is unknown about the drugs they take.

Follow the title link for the full story.

SAN ANTONIO - The millions of women who quit taking menopause hormones after a big federal study found that the pills raised the risk of breast cancer now have more reason to be glad they stopped.

A new analysis reveals that U.S. breast cancer rates plunged more than 7 percent in 2003 and strongly suggests that the reason is less hormone use.

"It's a big deal ... amazing, really," said one of the researchers, Dr. Rowan Chlebowski of Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. "It's better than a cure" because these are cases that never occurred, he said.

About 14,000 fewer women were diagnosed with the disease than had been expected, researchers reported Thursday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Cancers take years to form, so going off hormones would not instantly prevent new tumors. But tumors that had been developing might stop growing, shrink or disappear, so they were no longer detected by mammograms, doctors theorized.

Cases dropped most among women 50 and older — the age group taking hormones. The decline was biggest for tumors whose growth is fueled by estrogen — the type most affected by hormone use.

In fact, when both factors were combined — older women with estrogen-positive tumors — the drop was 12 percent.

The decline was seen in every single cancer registry that reports information to the federal government, and no big change occurred with any other major type of cancer. These are strong signs that the breast cancer decline is no statistical fluke or error.

follow link for the rest of the article....

Dow Chemical tried to silence report that Bisphenol A plastic is harmful

2006-12-05T21:30:00.000-05:00

Read full story at this link

This is shameful of DOW and shows that corporate greed prevails over concern for public safety hands down every time.

I think the most upsetting part is that this plastic has been used in the spill-proof toddler's cups for HOW LONG and they knew it could be harmful??? How about all the plastic food trays that Americans heat up in microwave ovens every single day??

I abandoned as much plastic as I could in my kitchen and switched to glass. If I buy frozen food I remove it from the plastic dish and put it into a glass dish and cook in the convection oven. I store nothing, cook nothing in plastic. However, I still use plastic water bottles so I probably need to find alternatives for those as well. I no longer use my microwave oven and I think the combination of microwaving and this deadly plastic are a HUGE factor in the drastic INCREASE in prostate and breast cancers in the industrialized world.

But guess where I found I may be exposing myself to this chemical without realizing it? My BRITA water jug. DOH! It is a very hard clear plastic jub but there is no recycle symbol. I did a search and found that it does indeed contain this chemical. Guess I'll be throwing THAT out now.

Excerpt:

University of Missouri, Colombia biological sciences professor Fred vom Saal is determined to show that plastics corporations are just as dangerous as tobacco companies, and reports that one major chemical company tried to persuade him to hold off on publishing his research to that effect.

The primary focus of vom Saal's research is bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that is found in polycarbonate plastics, which are used in steel food can linings, Lexan items, Nalgene bottles, baby bottles, spill-proof toddler's cups, plastic wrap, microwave-safe plastic dishware, and food containers. He says the chemical mimics powerful sex hormones and even small doses can cause brain damage, abnormal organ development, and hyperactivity. Vom Saal noted that many -- but not all -- products that have a 7 inside the recycling triangle symbol contain BPA, which he said is one of the biggest chemicals in production worldwide, with more than 6 billion pounds created and used annually.

Here is some more info on the harmful effects of BPA:

Suspicion Lingers Over BPA and Breast Cancer
Bisphenol A, a common industrial chemical claimed to speed the growth of human breast and ovarian cancers, retains its carcinogenic properties even after being modified by body processes, report Indiana University and University of California at Berkeley scientists in the Aug. 28th issue of Chemistry & Biology, a Cell Press journal.

"If our hypothesis is true about BPA, it's probably going to be the sum of effects of a lot of cancer-causing compounds that is responsible for the disease," Widlanski said. "We would not anticipate that BPA or any other single chemical is the only culprit here."

Plastics chemical BPA may Promote Breast Cancer

New research appearing in the journal Chemistry & Biology has shown that a chemical found in harder plastics -- such as those used to make water cooler jugs and CD cases -- may promote breast cancer.

Researchers from Indiana University studied how bisphenol-A (BPA) may be more easily absorbed by breast tumor cells than healthy cells. Experts have long assumed that since healthy cells do not readily absorb bisphenol sulfate -- one of the body's metabolized forms of BPA -- BPA is a harmless chemical. However, the Indiana researchers found that breast tumor cells, which vastly differ from normal, healthy cells, convert bisphenol sulfate back into BPA, which can be easily taken up into tumor cells.

Adams warns consumers to avoid heating food in plastic containers and to use glass, Pyrex or other non-plastic food containers whenever possible. He also urges consumers to read The Hundred-Year Lie to get the full story about the dangers of chemicals in foods, beverages, drugs and common kitchen items like storage containers.

Chemical used in food containers disrupts brain development

The chemical bisphenol A (BPA), widely used in products such as food cans, milk container linings, water pipes and even dental sealants, has now been found to disrupt important effects of estrogen in the developing brain.

A University of Cincinnati (UC) research team, headed by Scott Belcher, PhD, reports in two articles in the December 2005 edition of the journal Endocrinology that BPA shows negative effects in brain tissue "at surprisingly low doses."

Long known to act as an artificial estrogen, the primary hormone involved in female sexual development, BPA has already been shown to increase breast cancer cell growth, and in the January 2005 edition of the journal Cancer Research, another UC research team reported that it increased the growth of some prostate cancer cells as well. Warnings about other possible long-term health risks associated with fetal exposures to BPA have also been discussed in recent scientific literature.

---------------------------------------------

I found this great link on dangerous and safer plastics.

Widespread vitamin D deficiency may be cause of post-Winter flu outbreaks, scientists suggest

2006-12-01T15:42:00.000-05:00

From this link at NewsTarget.com

by Ben Kage

(NewsTarget) A team of researchers is gathering data in an attempt to determine why flu outbreaks hit the Northern Hemisphere during winter months and tend to peak between December and March, and a new theory suggests it may be a lack of sunshine-produced vitamin D.

In the past, many theories have been put forward to explain the seasonal flu flux, but explanations such as cold air and the tendency of people to group together "remain astonishingly superficial and full of inconsistencies," said Dr. Scott Dowell, director of the Global Disease Protection Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Theories about a chill causing the disease's prevalence is upended by evidence from tropical locations, where flu remains common and follows a similar seasonal pattern to its cold-climate counterpart. The grouping theory is debunked by the fact that certain groups of people are stuck in small spaces together year round, with no greater likelihood of contracting flu than anyone else.

>Now, the Harvard-University-led team is investigating whether inadequate sun exposure during the winter may open people up to infection, since exposure to ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) radiation from the sun causes vitamin D production in the skin. If the lack of vitamin D and increased flu cases in the winter are connected, it could have a significant impact on public health, as an average of 36,000 people die from flu in the United States every winter, primarily the elderly or the very young.

R. Edgar Hope-Simpson published the first paper that identified a link between flu epidemics and the winter solstice -- usually indentified as the start of winter and the shortest day of the year -- in 1981, despite having no formal training in the field of epidemiology. Simpson noted that flu infections spiked just before and after the winter solstice, and theorized that solar radiation might cause a sort of "seasonal stimulus" in the virus, the host or both, although he could not identify the stimulus.

Simpson's work was largely ignored, according to Dr. John Cannell, a psychiatrist at the Atascadero State Hospital in California. However, Cannel and his Harvard colleagues suggest the stimulus to which Simpson referred may be vitamin D. Cannell began investigating the possibility when a flu outbreak hit Atascadero in April of 2005 and all the wards surrounding his were infected, Cannell's patients were not. All of his patients, he said, were taking high daily doses of vitamin D.

During the winter, people are outdoors less often and the skin has less opportunity to produce vitamin D, and the atmosphere during that season is adept at blocking UVB radiation. This is why some health experts warn that Americans may not be getting sufficient vitamin D, especially with the resurgence of the vitamin-deficiency-related bone disorder known as rickets.

In the report -- published in the December issue of Epidemiology and Infection -- the researchers posit that the vitamin D stimulated by sunlight may, in turn, cause the body to produce the infection-fighting peptide cathelcidin. No studies been conducted that to show whether cathelcidin effects influenza, but previous studies in the March issue of Science have shown it attacks a range of fungi, viruses and bacteria, including the bacteria that causes tuberculosis.

The tropical evidence that upsets the chill theory does not preclude the vitamin D theory, as Cannell and colleagues point out, as studies show that vitamin D deficiencies have even been recorded in equatorial locations. Additionally, a 2003 analysis of flu cases found they were greatest during the rainy season, when there is a significant cloud cover and reduced sun exposure.

Despite the evidence offered by Cannell and colleagues, some members of the scientific community remain skeptical about the theory.

"They have manipulated the literature -- some of it very bad literature -- to prove their points," said Dr. James Cherry, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine. However, he added, "The hypothesis should be easy to prove or disprove with a controlled, blinded study."

Cannell, for his part, said he takes more than twice the recommended daily dose of vitamin D during winter months and reports he rarely gets sick.

Ultrasound Technique Helps Avoid Biopsies

2006-12-01T15:06:00.000-05:00

From this link:

CHICAGO - An experimental ultrasound technique that measures how easily breast lumps compress and bounce back could enable doctors to determine instantly whether a woman has cancer or not without doing a biopsy.

In a small study of 80 women, the technique — called "elastography" — distinguished harmless lumps from malignant ones with nearly 100 percent accuracy.

If the results hold up in a larger study, elastography could save thousands of women from the waiting, cost, discomfort and anxiety of a biopsy, in which cells are removed from the breast — sometimes with a needle, sometimes with a scalpel — and examined under a microscope.

"There's a lot of anxiety, a lot of stress, a lot of fear involved" with biopsies, said Susan Brown, manager of health education for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. "And there's the cost of leaving work to make a second appointment. If this can be done instead of a biopsy, there would be a real cost reduction."

Up to 1 million biopsies are performed each year on suspicious breast tissue detected by mammograms and self-exams, but as many as eight out of 10 of these biopsies find that the lumps are benign.

Biopsies can cost $200 to $1,000, depending on whether some fluid or an entire lump is removed, and it can take days or weeks to get the results. The cost of elastography is not yet clear, but some experts said the procedure might run $100 to $200. And it can yield results in minutes.

When checked against biopsies of women's breast tissue, the ultrasound technique correctly identified 17 out of 17 cancerous tumors, and 105 out of 106 harmless lesions. The findings were reported at a national radiology meeting in Chicago this week.

Scientists said the approach may also be used someday to rapidly diagnose damaged hearts and guide the treatment of prostate cancer.

The technique was pioneered during the 1990s at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston by Jonathan Ophir and his colleagues.

Ophir describes elastography as a way to measure and picture the elasticity of body tissue. In effect, it is an extension of one of the oldest tools in medicine, palpation, in which a doctor feels the shape and firmness of body tissue.

To explain elastography, Ophir likens the body to a box-spring mattress, but "a crazy mattress made out of millions of small springs and each one is a little different. Each is moving around at a different rate, depending on their individual stiffness." Cancerous tumors are like stiff springs. Normal tissue and benign lesions compress more easily.

Both traditional ultrasound and elastography use echoes from high-frequency sound waves to create pictures of what is going on inside the body, but elastography goes a step further.

In traditional ultrasound, a doctor or technician places a handheld device on the skin that sends high-frequency sound waves into the body. Organs and tissue reflect the sound back as echoes, which are sent to a computer that turns them into a picture. Many people have seen ultrasound images of fetuses in the womb.

Elastography, though, also gauges movement. As the doctor moves the handheld device against the breast, the device collects echoes before and after the compression or movement of the breast tissue. The resulting images show stiff tissues as dark areas and soft tissues as light areas.

Breast cancer shows up larger on an elastogram than it does on a traditional ultrasound image, perhaps because the elastogram can "see" the scar tissue around the cancer, Ophir said.

"It's like finding a marble in Jell-O," said Dr. Richard Barr, a professor of radiology at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine who reported his findings at the Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Germany-based Siemens AG provided the ultrasound equipment and software for Barr's study.

Ophir and other researchers said breast cancer diagnosis will be elastography's first real-world application.

"If it doesn't fly there, it won't fly anywhere," said Elisa Konofagou of Columbia University, who is testing elastography on animals and humans to determine the extent of damage after a heart attack. Uses in prostate cancer and thyroid cancer also are under study elsewhere.

Dr. Constantine Godellas, a cancer surgeon at Rush University Medical Center, said some patients and doctors would have trouble giving up biopsies, even if further research confirmed elastography's accuracy. Doctors may fear lawsuits if they do not order biopsies, he said.

"With the medical legal climate the way it is, that's a tough call to make," Godellas said. "It won't be until a lot more research has been done that people will really buy into it."

Dr. Ellen Mendelson, chief of breast imaging at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, predicted the technique will be used, but may not supplant biopsies, which are becoming less invasive.

"The goal of reducing unnecessary biopsies is laudable, but you don't want to miss a cancer," Mendelson said.

Quackwatch warning - Health Freedom under attack!

2006-11-26T14:50:00.000-05:00

This site really spells out the battle going on behind the scenes that many of you may not be aware of. In the waning days of conventional medicine's strangle-hold on the American people, they are resorting to the most devious tactics to silence the people who have found their way to natural health and healing and reject toxic "allopathic" medicine and have been exposing it for the scam that it is.

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/index.html

Please take the time to read the information at this site so you too can be informed and you can start to resist the propaganda war that is being put forth by the conventional medicine groups that wish to keep you hooked on drugs from your doctor and wish to keep you dependent on expensive surgeries and toxic cancer treatments as if they are the only alternative.

Hospitals and surgeons have a place in the medical field but only for critical care for accidents or severe organ failure. 90% of chronic diseases can be prevented and cured through eating whole food, avoiding trans fat, artificial chemicals, processed food and excessive sweets. Doctors do not have the answers for chronic diseases such as diabetes, arthritis, cancer, heart disease, auto-immune diseases etc. They have not been trained in nutrition or prevention. They have only been trained in propping us up with drugs and covering or reducing the symptoms, which many times result in a worsening of health overall.

Breast Cancer Diagnosis Brings Serious Distress

2006-11-15T01:36:00.000-05:00

Well hey, I've got an idea for all you breast surgeons and oncologists.. how about you not freaking use SCARE TACTICS to get women to feed into your money making cancer scam which you call treatments?

Read the full article here...

I love how they act so surprised about the effect of their SCARE TACTICS. Well from my experience alone, I can tell you, the way they handled delivering my "diagnosis" was befitting of an academy award. They expected me to cry - but I did not. I got the distinct feeling my situation was urgent and I should schedule surgery right away.

Well here I am now 4 months later, no surgery, no chemo, no radiation. So I am here to tell you in MOST cases, not all, the situation is NOT urgent. In the case of Inflammatory Breast Cancer however, it can be and you should get right on top of it. You can tell if you have that type if you have nipple inversion or pain and redness which indicates inflammation. Any kind of inflammation should be dealt with quickly.

If you are the majority who has the "ductal" type of cancer, it is a slow growing type and has only a 30% chance of becoming invasive. So you have time. But you wouldn't get that from your doctor. No.. They want to rush you right in like you are having a heart attack.

I defintely think July was a difficult month for me because of that diagnosis. I have had the lump since November, 2005. But once I got the "diagnosis" from getting the MRI, suddenly I had to contend with feelings of fear over what to do about it, which were exacerbated by the urgency I got from ALL of my doctors. My internist recommended a full mastectomy as the best course of action.. He is no longer my doctor by the way.

More evidence of the undue influence of Big Pharma

2006-11-14T17:02:00.000-05:00

From http://www.prwatch.org/spin

Drug Company Pulls Funding After Conference Criticism

Source: British Medical Journal, November 11, 2006

Adriane Fugh-Berman, an Associate Professor at Georgetown University School of Medicine, recounts her experience of speaking at a recent medical conference in New Mexico on the topic of drug industry influence in medical education. "Immediately after my talk, one pharmaceutical company representative announced to a conference organiser that her company would no longer support the annual conference. Another packed up his exhibit and walked out," she writes in the British Medical Journal. "The drug industry is happy to play the generous and genial uncle until physicians want to discuss subjects that are off limits, such as the benefits of diet or exercise, or the relationship between medicine and pharmaceutical companies." Instead of depending on drug companies funding of professional training, she argues it would be better if doctors "could actually pay for our continuing education, as do lawyers, accountants, business people, and aerobics teachers, to mention a few."

Degrees of Dependency: Drug Companies & Patient Groups

Source: New Scientist, 27 October 2006

In a survey of 29 U.S. patient groups, New Scientist found only two ruled out drug company funding. Seven of the patient groups surveyed received less than 5% of their income from drug companies, while others were reliant on them for over one-third of their budget. The Colorectal Cancer Coalition receives approximately 81% of its budget from drug companies while a PR consultant for the Neuropathy Association claimed funding sources was "proprietary" information. Joel Lexchin, from York University in Toronto, Canada said "groups should publicise how much money they've gotten from which companies and what it is used for." Even though patient groups dismiss the idea that funding influences their advocacy, Lexchin is unpersuaded: "psychologists talk about the 'gift relationship'. The patient organisations are getting something and feel the need to repay that gift. Whether they are conscious of it or not is really irrelevant."

Antioxidants do not interfere with cancer treatments

2006-11-14T16:42:00.000-05:00

FINALLY some scientific evidence to support what I and many other in the alternative health field already knew and that is that taking antixoidants (Vit C, E, Co-Q10 etc) does NOT interfere with cancer treatments and it actually HELPS the patient endure these toxic treatments. Why it can even prevent cancer patients from losing their hair with chemo!

Unbelievably, cancer doctors up until THIS VERY DAY, still believe that taking Vitamin C will interfere with radiation and chemo but in reality, anitxodiants only protect the good cells and the cancer cells do not have the ability to store antioxidants. This is the SAME mechanism that allows Artemisinin to work on cancer cells through oxidation without hurting normal cells because they can store antioxidants.

http://www.newstarget.com/021070.html

"Cancer patients will be the first to tell you (traditional treatments are) not enough," he said. "The integrated, whole person approach to cancer is highly valued, so much so that cancer patients and their caregivers are seeking out complementary or alternative therapies on their own."

----------------------------------
This is because the mainstream medical profession has DISMALLY failed cancer patients by ignoring the benefits of nutrition and boosting the immune system in a cancer patient and in ANY patient with a chronic disease.
-------------------------------------

"For years, oncologists have caused great harm to cancer patients by insisting that they take no antioxidants whatsoever during chemotherapy or radiation treatments," said Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate and holistic nutritionist. "This misguided advice has caused immeasurable harm among cancer patients, and is one reason why conventional medicine's cancer treatments ultimately kill so many people.

--------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like eating vegetables and fruit, then the best thing you can do is to get a good whole food supplement that is a desiccated version of the whole vegetables and fruits.. like Juice Plus. There are several on the market - just beware of ones who don't really contain whole foods only. The ideal nutrition comes from natural foods in their raw state - vegetables, fruits, seeds, whole grains.

Thermography Results

2006-11-09T12:43:00.000-05:00

Wanted to get this information up here for a week now.. and it seems to be good news but I won't be truly happy about it till I get more tests that align with this report. I wish I had been able to get a thermography scan back in July or August so that I could really compare then and now.

I have a lot of faith in thermography as an adjunctive test or perhaps an early warning screening kind of test. However, I wonder about what my results really mean and what it tells me. I now have two tests that come up normal.. The AMAS blood test and this thermography test.. yet the MRI's show a mass is still there (which I already know because it is palpable). And the October PEM Flex test showed metabolic cancer activity - cells took up sugar.

So the question is - does the thermography test show that there is no apparent cancer activity now and has it always been that way or is this recent? I really wish there was one test that could really prove or disprove the presence of a cancerous tumor and its stage. I think my next step will be to get the Cancer Profile test from the lab in Florida that tests for HcG.

Here are the thermography results in the language of ThermoMedLab who reviewed the images:

Left breast (no lumps etc): is considered within normal limits regarding thermal emission. Numerical values of 30-74 statistically, are most frequently associated with benign disorders such as cystic and fibrocystic breasts. TH score = 55

Right breast(palpable lump): is considered within normal limits regarding thermal emission. Numerical values of 30-74 statistically, are most frequently associated with benign disorders such as cystic and fibrocystic breasts. TH score = 30

So yes folks, the breast WITH the lump is cooler than the one without the lump!

The TH Ranges are as follows:

0-29 Normal

30-74 Normal with possible benign cystic characteristics

75-119 Considered at risk, possibly benign cystic

120-149 Abnormal, moderate risk.

> 150 Severely abnormal, significant risk.

Medical science may finally be getting it

2006-11-09T08:45:00.000-05:00

They *still* have it sort of backwards but it is a step in the right direction. I think their approach, since it deals with unnatural means, may lead to side effects like arthritis and other auto-immune disorders because they are *suppressing* the T-reg cells which *control* the immune system. An uncontrolled immune system could very likely start to attack "self" and that is how arthritis and other auto-immune diseases come about.

Still, it's a step in the right direction because medical science admits that the immune system itself is already a pretty good weapon against cancer if it is allowed to work. What is missing is the simple approach of supporting the immune system with super nutrition, avoidance of toxic burden (artificial chemicals, hydrogenated oils, processed foods and chemo/radiation) and common sense healthful lifestyle like getting exercise, reducing stress, positive attitude. All of these help the immune system do it's job. No need to suppress the T-regulator cells with that approach, that I feel is going to lead to side effects down the road.

Article can be found here

What I think is extra ironic is... all the people in the alternative health field have known this for decades and yet they got attacked as QUACKS by the mainstream medical field. Now medical researchers are studying that very same thing and acting like it's their discovery. What a bunch of CRAP.

Warning for all bloggers

2006-11-07T09:51:00.000-05:00

Just now I received a comment from "anonymous" that contained a link to a malicious site called http://breast-cancer1.com. Do not visit this site because it is probably malicious.

I moderate all my comments and that one was rejected and I never visited the site because I did some research before I went there. It had all the indications of a lazy ass scumbag hacker because the comment was very brief and just wanted to direct people to a link.

I warn all bloggers to moderate their comments so they can verify them because had this comment been posted, my blog may have assisted this scumbag in infecting my blog visitors with whatever malicious program they intended to distribute.

If you are the scumbag hacker who left this comment, I have reported you to your Registrar, godaddy.com and I track visits so not only do I have you latitude/longitude but I have your IP address of the computer where you visited from. GoDaddy.com knows that your registrant information is also false so I expect that they will be shutting your domain down.

I like to do my part to eliminate scumbags from perpertrating exploits.

Mercury laced vaccines will be given again to children

2006-11-03T18:58:00.000-05:00

So as a parent in California, you now get to choose Autism or Flu for your kid.

From this article on NewsTarget:

(NewsTarget) California health officials announced today that children younger than 3 will be temporarily allowed to receive flu shots containing a mercury-laced preservative called thimerosal, after physicians statewide said mercury-free vaccines were running short.

Earlier this year, California passed a state law banning vaccines containing thimerosal from being injected in pregnant women and children under 3 years old, but reports of flu shot shortages have temporarily overruled the law.

The exemption applies only to children under 3, and will last six weeks to give the pediatric vaccine maker -- Pennsylvania-based Sanofi Pasteur -- enough time to ship an additional half million doses.

"We feel it is important to offer this short-term alternative to parents and health care providers in order to ensure young children are protected from the potentially severe effects of the flu," said Kim Belshe, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, in a statement.

Dr. Randy Bergen, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Kaiser Permanente, said young children and the elderly are most vulnerable to seriously complications from influenza, and children under 3 who are getting their first flu shots will actually need two doses to receive full benefits.

The mercury preservative thimerosal -- which is roughly 50 percent mercury by weight -- has been used in U.S. vaccines since the 1930s to help prevent fungal and bacterial contamination. However, in the 1990s parents and physicians brought awareness to thimerosal's possible link to rising child autism rates.

Last year, anti-thimerosal lobbying groups successfully banned vaccines containing the preservative from being given to young children and pregnant women. However, the law can be waived if mercury-free vaccines are in short supply.

Four California medical groups -- the California branch of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Medical Association, the California Academy of Family Physicians and Kaiser Permanente -- recently asked the state to temporarily waive the law after some clinics reported running short of the mercury-free kids' vaccine.

Milk Thistle protects your Liver and helps with Diabetes

2006-11-02T15:53:00.000-05:00

I am posting this information because protecting your liver is one of the best things you can do because your liver is the second largest detoxification organ in your body. The number one organ is your skin. Yes your skin is an organ. Protecting your liver will help you be healthy and help reverse a lot of different kinds of health problems.

The main focus of the research in these articles is on Milk Thistle and its ability to help regulate blood sugar for Diabetes.

Here is the NewsTarget article...

And here are some more links on this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061030071127.htm

And this article talks about the application of Milk Thistle (Silymarin) with Diabetes as well as this section on applications with cancer:

Finally, researchers from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, reported that silymarin slowed the growth of human cancer cells. In a cell-culture study, Rajesh Agarwal, PhD, and his collaborators determined that silymarin inhibited epidermal growth factor cell receptors, a type of tyrosine kinase receptor that promotes tumor growth.

"Silymarin treatment also resulted in a highly significant inhibition of cell growth and proliferation," Agarwal wrote in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology (1997;108:547, #60). "Treatment of cells with other antioxidant-like green tea polyphenols, EGCG [epigallocatechin gallate], quercetin, curcumin and genistein, also resulted in similar inhibitory effects albeit at different levels."

Birth Control Pills linked to Pre-Menopausal Breast Cancer

2006-11-01T19:38:00.000-05:00

I have seen this link before and I can tell you that yes, I took birth control pills in my 20's and early 30's. I can't tell you for how long I took them but it was in the order of years. It might have been 3 or 4 maybe and I think there were a couple of 3-4 year periods when I tried a different type. All of them made me gain weight. One made my skin go blotchy in the sun.. a weird uneven tan pattern that was not very attractive. So ultimately I stopped taking them. But perhaps I am yet another statistic pointing to the definite risks of taking birth control pills.

Here is the article.

I can also tell you that even though I kept questioning my doctors about the weight gain, they consistently denied it caused weight gain. I disagree totally because before taking them, I never had a problem with weight gain and I gained something like 20-30 pounds after taking birth control pills that I am just starting to finally lose being on this all-natural detox diet.

The last time I took a birth control pill was at least 15-20 years ago. And now I am paying a price apparently. So if you are currently taking them, be warned of this new evidence of increased incidence of "pre-menopausal" breast cancer. I am a virtual living statistic....

Please preserve the Internet!

2006-11-01T01:13:00.000-05:00

If you value the ability to look up tons of information on just about any topic and get independent veiws as well as mainstream views, you will need to sit up and take notice of something sinister that is about to happen to our last freedom, the Internet.

Please read this article to find out more.

If the bill HR 5252 gets passed, this blog may not reach as many people as it is now and people will be cut off from valuable FREE and INDEPENDENT information.

See this link as well that is a FAQ on the topic.

And this article is even more direct in it's characterization of what could happen if this goes through. Through the same site, you can sign a petition and send email to your representatives letting them know how you feel. We need to speak up now before it's too late.

See this link for the groundswell to preserve Net Neutrality as it is today on the Internet.

Some excerpts from other sources of note:

From http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=177

Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the nation's telecommunications laws (H.R. 5252) that fails to protect Net Neutrality. Senator Wyden has placed a hold on this legislation until clear language is included in the bill to protect Net Neutrality. He is also a co-sponsor of a bipartisan Net Neutrality measure offered this spring by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.).

"The key to the Internet's growth and success has been its inherent openness and freedom," said Alan Davidson of Google. "Senator Wyden has been among the strongest voices fighting to protect the freedom of Internet users. We applaud his efforts to preserve Network Neutrality and to make sure any Internet content can be accessed free of restrictions."

Net Neutrality is supported by a diverse, growing coalition of big and small businesses, unions, educators, thousands of bloggers and every major consumer group in the country. More than 750 organizations from across the political spectrum have come together as the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, including Free Press, U.S. PIRG, the Christian Coalition, MoveOn, Consumers Union, Gun Owners of America, ACLU and the American Library Association. SavetheInternet.com has collected more than 1.2 million petition signatures nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all you Pennsylvania voters reading this, Senator Rick Santorum voted to TABLE the Dorgan amendment referred to above so he is not someone who is a stauch supporter of INTERNET FREEDOM AND NEUTRALITY so consider that on November 7th.

Yet another travesty against natural health

2006-10-30T21:52:00.000-05:00

Please read this article to learn some more frightening facts about how useful information that can help thousands of people is suppressed and attacked by our government and other governments as well!

Some excerpts:

Recently, I was sent the 1,847 page transcript of the three-week trial of Truehope’s founders, Anthony Stephan and David Hardy, who have just been found not guilty of criminal charges brought against them by Health Canada (Canada’s FDA) for distributing an “unapproved drug” during the year 2003. So, the rest of this article will include key details of the trial not available elsewhere. Many who are already familiar with the Truehope story believe that the co-founders of Truehope have developed the most significant breakthrough in the treatment of mental illness that has occurred during our lifetime. I am hard pressed not to agree with them.

During the time that Truehope continued to develop and promote its product, Health Canada tried many ways to shut Truehope down, including raiding Truehope’s corporate offices and seizing corporate and patient records, as well as closing down a study financed by the Province of Alberta at the University of Calvary. Eventually, by the time Health Canada started seizing the product at the border as it came from the American manufacturing plant into Canada, the Canadian Mental Health Association jumped in to arrange “personal exemptions” for desperate patients, and even reported several deaths to Health Canada because of the stoppage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So oppression in the name of "better science" is not just the sole domain of the United States. Oppressors of natural treatments are everywhere and they must be stopped.

Is America becoming a Fascist state?

2006-10-30T20:49:00.000-05:00

Coming to a theater near you is America: Freedom to Fascism. Why do I mention this movie in a blog about breast cancer? Because the evil roots that control the cancer industry are growing way deeper than I ever realized and it is ALL connected. Go ahead and call me a wacko. I believe we have become, as a population, the most anesthesized, sickly and apathetic group of people ever. We are no better than the food for a bunch of parasites. We labor day in and day out and most of us never see the American Dream because we pay so much of it in our taxes and daily living expenses.

So the pharmaceutical companies that want to make us all dependent on drugs? That's just the TIP of the horrid iceberg people. I no longer watch TV and I don't get the programming any more so I am seeing clearly what everyone else is seeing through a media haze. Do you realize how much you are programmed what to think through newspapers, magazines and TV? Do you have ANY idea? The people who control all of that media are the ones who are at the roots of this mess we are in. They are pulling all the strings of government. Not the American voters. We are just pawns for the bankers controlling everything.

Go see this movie. And wake the heck up. Your future depends on it.

This movie is available on youtube, but I encourage you to support the creator of the movie and see it in the theater. It's an amazing thing that he is able to get this movie to be shown because I believe it WILL start a revolution. If it doesn't, then this country is already down the tubes.

Gimme a break

2006-10-29T22:14:00.000-05:00

Ok in this article I just found, the guy is obviously FOR Pharmaceutical companies continuing to spread LIES that they are working on a cure for cancer. It gets downright irritating for women with the push and pull of information coming in the form of a freaking hillbilly feud. Corporate profit motives ARE exploiting breast cancer with the "pink" campaign and pharmaceutical companies ARE directing research money ONLY to cures which they can patent and they are IGNORING natural cures that are available NOW.

Mammograms do not save lives. Only 1 woman out of 100 is better off for having gotten a mammogram and 8 will have false positives that might result in unnecessary and toxic treatments and possibly disfiguring surgery they didn't need. Mammograms compress the breast, inducing TRAUMA which makes the breast more prone to cancer and to boot they irradiate them as well. For each mammogram a woman receives she increases her chance of getting cancer FROM the mammogram by 2%. After 10 years of annual mammograms she has increased he cancer risk by 20%.

There are other methods available that are safer now. For routine screening you just need to be familiar with your breasts so you can recognize changes. If you have lumps that are benign now, be familiar with where they are. If you see changes in the skin, or redness or feel a new lump - then you go for a breast MRI and possibly also a PEM Flex scan (PET scan mammogram)..

The reporter in the linked story is sadly misinformed and just repeating the conventional medicine mantra. He is misguided in his attempt to "protect" women. I suggest he go and do a little more research before he writes the next story.

Byron Richards weighs in on the FDA bullying

2006-10-29T10:34:00.000-05:00

Here is a great article on NewsTarget.com. I always love how Mike Adams sees right through the hype of any issue and gets right to the truth. With his help I have become more aware of the media spin perpertrated by the FDA and the Pharmaceutical cartel. The FDA is supposed to be working for us - they get taxpayer money. But instead, they are the federal arm of the Pharmaceutical cartel and it needs to be stopped.. now...

Read the NewsTarget article here for an even more scathing review of their bullying than even my own post on the topic...

Here are some highlights from the article:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDA was within their rights to send warning letters. True enough, some of these small companies had stepped over the line. Had they harmed anybody? Most of the nutrients in the products being offered actually have considerable science showing they may help diabetes. What is the FDA really afraid of? People getting better? People learning what options they have to the drug racket of the sickness industry? Maybe the FDA is trying to distract the public, portraying themselves as effective while they continue to this day to allow thousands of Americans to be injured and die in the name of profits for Bayer.

The FDA justified beating up on small American companies in this way: “We will not tolerate practices that raise false hopes and bilk consumers of precious health care dollars,” said Margaret O’K. Glavin, FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. “Diabetes requires effective treatments and aggressive management, not bogus and unproven products.”

And what are these effective treatments? A commonly used FDA-approved diabetes drug, Actos, has been found to increase edema and heart failure and have no benefit to diabetic patients. Another diabetes drug, Metformin, is known to cause B12 deficiency that will certainly increase the risk for neuropathy. Then there is the expensive new diabetes drug, Januvia, expected to have sales of a billion dollars. Once again, the drug only treats symptoms and does not fix the cause of the problem. When doctors put patients on insulin to control type II diabetes the typical outcome is that blood sugar is lowered by stuffing calories into fat, a medical treatment that causes fatigue and further obesity. If we took the FDA statement about “bilking consumers” at face value many common FDA-approved diabetes treatments would need to be shut down. Is it any wonder individuals are desperately looking for help?

The FDA is discriminatory against small nutritional companies. This is because the FDA is avidly seeking to create a New World Order in which all supplement companies are owned or controlled by Big Pharma, and all therapeutic nutritional supplements are removed from the free market.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This last paragraph worries me a great deal as I feel he is 100% on the money. They are trying to browbeat the small companies who provide real health solutions into being controlled by Big Pharma so they can corral all the healthy alternatives through their own profit machine. This is troublesome to me and everyone needs to WAKE UP and see what is going on.

One good thing is, pharmaceutical companies will never be able to control how much good food I eat. However, they CAN alter the food supply with their unnatural chemicals and additives to the point that none of us can escape the toxic effects. And THAT is what I worry about.

Chemical companies - usually owned by or in bed with - pharamaceuticals - are trying to control our lives through chemicals. I have forsaken most chemicals in my foods - those that I can knowingly avoid through reading the labels. Our lives are NOT better through chemistry. Very few things chemistry has added to our lives is beneficial. It is unnatural and there is a price to pay for every one we ingest, whether on purpuse through so-called "medicines" or through food or inadvertently in our environment.

Australian attack on Laetrile

2006-10-26T16:00:00.000-04:00

I found this article just recently which is FULL of misinformation that has been peddled by the big cancer business cartel - and that is that Laetrile will give you cyanide poisoning. This is totally NOT TURE. I can tell you that because I am taking at least 2 grams a day of Laetrile and I am not getting poisoned. It does not release cyanide unless in the presence of a cancer cell and it is on a very small scale, taking the cancer cell out in the process.

I can't comment on the doctor who is the subject of the article - whether he is taking people's money or not. But what I think is laughable is - they are charging his with the death of some patients. I'd like to see more of that with doctors in THIS COUNTRY. Charge some of the oncologists with freaking MURDER when they kill their cancer patients. I'll bet that would change some of the barbaric treatments!

Here is the sentence that gets my blood boiling:

Laetrile has shown little anti-cancer effect in laboratory studies. Its active anti-cancer ingredient is cyanide. Side effects include cyanide poisoning.

They have the audacity to make these statements without any data because you know what? if they had data it would show that Laetrile IS effective. The freaking laboratory studies they refer to were conducted by Sloan Kettering and they skewed the data to show it did not work.

Please read this article

Dr Ralph Moss is THE expert on the cover-up by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Hospital when it comes to Laetrile. Here is his bio

Ralph W. Moss, PhD, is an internationally known medical writer who has written or edited twelve books and three film documentaries, mostly on the question of cancer research and treatment. He is a graduate of New York City public schools, New York University (BA, cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1965) and Stanford University (MA, 1973, PhD, 1974, Classics). The former science writer and assistant director of public affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York (1974-1977), for over 30 years Moss has independently evaluated the claims of various cancer treatments, conventional and nonconventional. He currently directs The Moss Reports, a periodically updated library of detailed reports on 200+ varieties of cancer diagnoses. A recognized expert on such treatments, he is listed in Marquis Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in HealthCare, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------

All I have to say is.. YOU DECIDE. I know I have.

Another new breast cancer test

2006-10-25T07:00:00.000-04:00

This test sounds identical to PEM Flex but it is called BSGI or Breast Specific Gamma Imaging. I love how the article fails to mention that this is not new and that PEM Flex was out there first and is a similar technology. Just goes to show you how much weight you can put on any one news article. Seems to me it should have been mentioned. Read the article here.

In case you haven't read my post on PEM Flex, the test is NOT without side effects from the radiation however those effects are usually short lived. They will NOT tell you there can be side effects from the radiation. However, the test seems to be very useful since a tumor will show metabolic activity and be detected. During the test, you are a radioactive hazard to the technician.

I have some new thoughts on this also however. I am wondering if a benign lesion would also show metabolic activity if there are a bunch of cells collected there. How likely is it that that lump will be detectable on tests like this and it is *always* a tumor which should be "treated"? I am not sure if shows the degree of the cancer and perhaps one that is properly walled off and being handled by the body will appear the same as one which is aggressive and infiltrating.

In any case it is WAY more accurate than mammograms. I would *not* recommend getting this test on an annual basis however because of the radiation exposure. I'm not even sure if it should be used when a lump is found because most lumps are NOT cancer and that would expose so many more women to radiation through the injection.

My current opinion if I were to find a new lump today or for the first time would be to get a cancer profile blood test done (see a couple posts back on that) and get a report about the levels of HCG and trophoblasts in your body to see if your body is in fact producing cancer cells. If you get a report showing this condition does exist, then go ahead and get the BSGI or PEM Flex test along with a Breast MRI. With that information you can decide if you should take action.

I would also recommend a thermography scan as a baseline *before* anyone gets any lumps. Then it can be very helpful *after* a lump is found to compare to the baseline thermography scan.

However, I also believe that if a woman gets an annual thermography scan, any cancer development can be caught earlier with that simple test. Way more valuable than annual mammograms and no risk.

Thermography scan

2006-10-24T15:08:00.000-04:00

Ok got the thermography scan. My first one. I won't have a report till next week after the images are analyzed. Here is how it went and what I needed to do in preparation:

Two days prior, no underarm shaving
No coffee or alchohol for 24 hours prior to test
Hot shower more than 2 hours before test, preferably more
No deodorant under arms the morning of the test

For the test, they had me sit with a gown on upper body and with bare feet, on a stool in front of the camera. I could see the thermal images on the screen while sitting there. They had me sit for 15 minutes in the room to acclimate. The room was on the cool side. I was not to touch my chest or that area during that 15 minutes.

Once the test started, the gown was dropped down and my hands were above my head to lift the breasts for better visibility. There were three angles - frontal, left and right. Then my hands were submerged in icey water for 1 minute to draw blood away from breasts and into hands. Another three images were taken. In my case, there was no difference in the images.

My right breast where the lump is, showed a large area of dark blue coloring compared to the left. Not sure what that means. There were no "hot spots" of color that I could tell in either breast.

Results come back next week. They send the data off to have it analyzed by thermography experts.

After the scan I sat for 30 minutes in the Infrared Sauna - set to 126 degrees... a very dry heat. Heat is an enemy of cancer cells and it also draws viruses and toxins out and gets rid of them.

After that visit I headed over to Dr Lipton's office for a quick PAPIMI treatment. That is the magentic pulse generator thing. I am getting 12 treatments altogether centered around the right breast for the most part.

After the PAPIMI yesterday I noticed some new sensations in my right breast - not really pain or discomfort.. more of a "twinge". .. but certainly a sensation in that area where there had never been any before. I am thinking this is a sign of some change in the lump - perhaps necrosis of cancer cells and then my body dealing with it?

I plan to next get a full cancer profile from this place
That test will look for some cancer markers and also HcG - read more about what this test can do at this link.

The Cancer Machine loves celebrity endorsements

2006-10-24T09:49:00.000-04:00

Every time I see another celebrity with breast cancer being paraded in the media it gets me angrier. This just serves the interests of the Cancer Machine - that being the big Pharmaceutical companies for the most part, who stand to benefit the most from current cancer "treatments". Another industry heavily in favor of spreading fear about breast cancer to generate more potential patients is the Radiology industry. Close behind them is the Surgeons. I would call this the Cancer Profit Triad really.

Here is a story that shows what I mean and I quote:

Dr Lesley Walker of Cancer Research UK said: "The survey illustrates another aspect of what has come to be known as 'the Kylie effect'.

"Celebrities with breast cancer like Kylie Minogue and Caron Keating have attracted a lot of publicity - especially in magazines aimed at younger women.

"This is very beneficial in that it raises awareness of breast cancer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation - it is very beneficial for those who stand to profit from getting more cancer customers.

It is NOT beneficial in the spreading of FEAR and the chance that many women, out of the FEAR will get screened, they will find a lump, they will not be sure if it is cancer and they will subject that woman to UNECESSARY surgery and radiation.

What I really am pissed about is - they really can't be 100% sure a lump is cancer until they remove it. Even if they see "neoplastic" activity it is not an indication that something must be done about it. So, lots of women end up getting "treatment" they NEVER NEEDED and certainly had they just made positive changes to their diets in response to the fear instead of following the tortured path of conventional medicine, they would all be WAY better off.

I think it is safe to say that a large proportion of women who get "cancer treatment" are worse off than had they NEVER gotten treatment. Now, down the road, if they don't make drastic changes to their diet and lifestyle, it could become a problem. Herein lies the dilemma. The current practice of interfering at an early stage with invasive procedures almost ensures damage to the health of the patient. If the early detection patients would SIMPLY follow standard cancer diets which should include cutting out sugar, processed foods and animal fats and also adding Laetrile to the daily intake, we would see a lot less women losing their hair, suffering from the long term effects of chemo and radiation. When will this madness end? How can we educate the women of the world to choose HEALTH over INJURY when it comes to cancer?

FDA, FTC have joined forces to remove natural diabetes treatments from the web using campaign of "threat letters," says health advocate

2006-10-24T09:11:00.000-04:00

So here we go with the Big Pharma bullying. This is OUTRAGEOUS and should not be tolerated by our citizens for our government institutions to bully retailers like this! Here is a link to the NewsTarget article and here are some excerpts from that article:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(NewsTarget) According to a newsletter on the FDA website, the agency has teamed up with the Federal Trade Commission and similar agencies in Canada and Mexico to form the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN), in order to quash "deceptive" internet ads for cures or treatments for diabetes.

The warning letters caution that failure to comply with the FDA's demands may result in actions such as product seizure and injunctions without any further notice. So far, the network says it has caused a quarter of targeted firms to shut down, and some others are in contact with the FTC regarding the warnings.

Health advocates such as Adams and Jon Barron say that the only consumers who are being taken in, however, are the ones who buy into the FDA and FTC claims.

Barron points out on his blog, that a study was released on the same day the FDA made their announcement, suggesting that FDA-approved diabetes drug pioglitazone is not only useless as a treatment, but is also harmful to patients.

Barron said that consumers should read between the lines of Glavin's quote, and assume she means that the FDA will not tolerate practices that raise false hopes and bilk consumers unless the pharmaceutical companies and FDA-approved drugs are responsible for said false hopes and bilking.

"The conventional medicine approach to treating diabetes doesn't work," Adams said. "No diabetes patient has ever been cured by pharmaceuticals, but countless numbers have been cured through foods, herbs, nutritional supplements and exercise. The FDA doesn't want anyone to know that because it threatens the profits of drug companies.

"Drug companies are expecting a windfall of profits from diabetes patients over the next two decades, but to lock those profits in, they have to clear away the competition from anti-diabetic foods, herbs and nutritional supplements," he said. "Enter the FDA and FTC, the street thugs of Big Pharma, who do the dirty work of threatening online retailers with heavy fines if they don't stop telling the truth about their natural products."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's ludicrous for them to try to threaten retailers outside the jurisdiction of the US as well. But if the CODEX is passed, then the long reach of the FDA will be extended to THE WORLD. That is why we need to STOP THE CODEX. Their agenda is not to make people healthy. It is to protect the Pharmaceutical company profits. A large number of Advisory Board members of the FDA have stock in and very strong ties to Pharmaceuticals and Chemical companies.

You know that next in their crosshairs will be Laetrile. Most of the Laetrile sold online comes from Mexico so I am certain they will be trying the same tactics with Laetrile next. I will make it my LIFE MISSION to make sure Laetrile is available to EVERYONE.

Sheryl Crow suffers from edema in left arm

2006-10-24T08:37:00.000-04:00

Well I was wondering when we would hear some of the down side to Sheryl's breast cancer treatments because it sure seemed we were only hearing what the Cancer Machine wanted us to hear and that was "we fixed Sheryl Crow". Well now it seems in this link discussing her workout routines that she confesses to Gabby Reece the following:

"I am finding that periodically I have edema in my left arm and am unable to do what I usually do with it, strength-wise. And because I am compensating for it, my shoulder gets sore. "

That's because she probably agreed to the "sentinel lymph node biopsy" which I think is a terrible way to see if cancer has spread. It involves removing lymph nodes to check them. Well you can't put them back after you check them and SO many women suffer from edema in that arm after this procedure. Doctors try to downplay the risk. It also REDUCES the protection from your lymph system from infections in that arm.

There is a reason why the lymph nodes are there and taking some out will ALWAYS have consequences. I think it is deplorable that the doctors so easily promote such a practice. There are other ways to test if cancer has spread and here are just a few:

The PEM test includes a scan of the axillary lymph nodes in the arm nearest any detected breast lump and *will* show if there is cancer in those lymph nodes. No need to REMOVE the lymph nodes to check them. Grrrr

Back to Sheryl... so the public face of Sheryl Crow seems to be the poster child for the conventional medicine solution to breast cancer as can be seen in many articles like this one.

She was told "they got it all" and she is "free and clear" .. well I hope Sheryl reads this blog because since she got the radiation treatment, she is ripe for a new cancer to spring up unless she follows some of the alternative methods such as a predominantly raw diet, adding Laetrile to her regimen etc. Since she let them remove some lymph nodes in that arm, she has reduced infection fighting ability in that arm. Super nutrition is the only thing that is going to keep her from becoming a headline again with a new cancer fight.

Lose the FAT to fight cancer

2006-10-23T22:56:00.000-04:00

Not only should you cut out animal fat you eat, but you need to lose the fat you are carrying around if you want to fight cancer. This is good news for me since I have dropped about 10 pounds with more dropping each week from my new diet of healthy foods. I figure I was carrying around about 20-30 pounds I could do without to get to a normal weight. Nothing I did before this every made the scale budge more than a pound or two. My past efforts included diet drinks, and some lowfat foods that might have been mostly chemical - certainly not natural by any means. I never ate red meat or very rarely.. mostly chicken, turkey etc. But now I am mostly eating vegetables, fruits, non-dairy and a little fish.

Here is an article on this that illustrates a study with lean mice and their ability to fight cancer...

The TRUTH for Breast Cancer Awareness Month

2006-10-23T13:43:00.000-04:00

Here is an excellent article from my favorite Health Activist Mike Adams at NewsTarget that very succinctly sums up how women are being feared into becoming victims of the big Cancer Machine needlessly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from the article:

The emphasis on breast cancer "screening," and the circus of holding breast cancer awareness months is, of course, all about recruiting more women into a system of treatment that generates profits for drug companies. Using fear-based tactics of recruitment (like telling women, "You'll die in six months if you don't undergo chemotherapy..."), the breast cancer industry manages to corral women of all races and ages into treatments that actually harm far more women than they help.

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

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

Ever notice that cancer centers are not called, "Anti-Cancer Centers?" You see them in virtually every city and state across the country: The Washington Cancer Center, or the San Francisco Cancer Center. Here in Arizona, we have a massive, new building being constructed, and it's named the Arizona Cancer Center. These are all monuments to cancer, and they are for-profit businesses constructed for the purpose of making money from a woman's disease. They turn cancer into profit, and they depend on continued cancer to stay in business.

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

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

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

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

21 things that PREVENT cancer:

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well done Mike... I'm so on board with this effort he is making to counter the total scam being perpetrated by the AMA and the big pharmaceutical companies...

During this month of "Breast Cancer Awareness" I am constantly assaulted when in public with the signs of the marketing campaign by the profiteers in the cancer "industry". It makes me downright SICK to see the exploitation of a very serious disease affecting women. Women are being educated to FEAR their breasts - some even cutting them off before they get cancer. This is so totally outrageous. I wonder if the people responsible for all this misinformation have any conscience at all...

Another bogus report on mammograms

2006-10-23T00:44:00.000-04:00

So the title of this article says Mammograms Reduce Breast Cancer Deaths. Yet, in the article we have these excerpts:

The reviewers estimated that for every 2,000 women who are invited to get mammograms for 10 years, one woman’s life will be prolonged as a result of detecting and treating a potentially lethal cancer. Another 10 healthy women will be transformed into cancer patients and undergo treatment needlessly.

An additional 200 will have the anxiety-inducing experience of a false positive — being told about a suspicious finding on a mammogram that further testing reveals to be noncancerous.

“Screening mammography is clearly a double-edged sword,” said Lisa Schwartz, M.D., co-director of the Veterans Administration Outcomes Group in White River Junction, Vermont.

“Regular screening will save some lives but will cause even more women to be harmed through the unnecessary diagnosis and treatment of cancers that would never have affected their health, were it not for screening.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok so show me again how mammogram reduce breast cancer deaths???? The title does not match the content of the article.

This is the sticking point for me and for my breast cancer lump as well. Does having found require me to do something about it necessarily? I am very healthy. What would have happened if I had not found it? Is it like a time bomb that would have gone off at some point? Or would it just sit there minding it's own business until I authorized some surgeon to go digging around in my breast? I firmly believe that in a LARGE number of cases, the treatment hastens the disease, causes the patient to suffer under the toxic load of the "treatment" and if they are lucky they get through it. What would have happened if they had done nothing?

Earlier in this blog I linked a story about women on which autopsies were performed who died of other causes such as accidents. They found a large number of women had these ductal carcinomas and they probably never even knew it. I don't think this means they were going to necessarily get sick and die because they had them either. However, some of them might have eventually come down with more and more cancer depending on how they lived, what they ate etc.

So I think it is ABSOLUTELY true that women are so scared these days and they get the mammograms and BAM they say - you have breast cancer - but in many cases the treatment is WAY overkill and makes the woman's health actually DECLINE from a healthy starting point. SO UNNECESSARY! If more women who had an "early detection" would learn how to change their diet, take Laetrile and other changes that support healing, I believe we would see WAY more women beating breast cancer for good.

Overtreatments common for breast cancer

2006-10-23T00:33:00.000-04:00

A good article discussing how many women are prescribed tamoxifen even if their cancer is not stimulated by estrogen, and some more information on how women fare after getting a lumpectomy vs a mastectomy.

Once again, as in many of the mainstream articles, it is NEVER mentioned how the women fare who opt to not do surgery, chemo or radiation and instead use natural methods to fix the underlying problem. How can the mainstream continue to ignore this fact???

Surgery is not necessarily without risks and I am not just talking about infections. It also likely spreads the cancer because they can NEVER "get it all" as much as they like to tell people that. The cliche "we think we got it all" is so untrue. The cancer cells left behind become more aggressive and right at the time when your body is recovering from surgery as well.

I have been finishing the book World Without Cancer and it is quite the eye opener. I also continue to take Laetrile and have increased to three times a day at least with 500mg. I continue to take the Zeolite as well and I alternate the Artemisinin now every other evening.

What really shocks me about the linked article above is - they mentioned that some women with mastectomies were given radiation.. Um.. why? The breast tissue is gone.. what is left to irradiate? And I saw that some women are still being given chemotherapy when it should be well known by now that chemotherapy is NOT recommended for breast cancer. I also believe, even if it has shown up in the lymph nodes - it should not be used. Of course I wouldn't take a chemo drug EVER. Well that is unless I wanted to commit suicide which is what you are doing if you let them inject you with chemo drugs. The chemo drugs they are "treating" people with suppress the immune system at a time when it is ALREADY SUPPRESSED in some way. So hey let's kick it in the groin while we're at it!

Watch out for Organic Fakes

2006-10-21T13:19:00.000-04:00

Apparently the consumer demand for organic has created some not so honest organic food producers who label their foods as organic but the source of the food is not necessarily what you would expect.

View this Dr Mercola video on the subject and become an informed consumer

Also see this link on mercola.com to how to find locally produced organic food in your area:

I for one, am disappointed to find out that Stonyfield Farms Organic Yogurt is not really what I thought it was and not particularly healthy. I was using that in my health shakes and I will promptly throw it right out now that I know the truth.

Very sad when you cannot trust food labels. Not only do I need to read the labels, but now I have to do additional research before I even go to the grocery store. Pretty irritating.

TV is Ruining Your Life

2006-10-21T12:43:00.000-04:00

A great article here on how you can actually be brave enough to give up TV. I have.

I actually stopped watching TV well before my early July breast cancer diagnosis and I don't miss it. There are times when in social gatherings people say "Hey did you see that commercial on.. ?" or they discuss a new TV series of which I know nothing. But guess what.. there are lots of other interesting things to talk about than "what's on TV"

In fact a good 98% of my life is commercial free. The only time I see advertising is the few banner ads on web sites (I use Firefox and block pop-ups and many banner ads), or in a magazine or billboard. I have not heard a SINGLE political ad for the upcoming election which makes my heart sing! I have Sirius Satellite Radio for my music and mostly listen to the "Spa" channel which is continuous New Age relaxing music and wonderfully peaceful background music.

If I want to buy something, I seek it in Google or Froogle and I research it on the Internet. I don't need advertisers to SUGGEST a product I might need. I can come up with those ideas all by myself and then I evaluate the choices. This is the way it should be. We are simply BOMBARDED with buy this buy that junk in our world and it should be considered a form of pollution.. Mind pollution...

Furthermore, most of the advertising suggests you aren't good enough the way you are unless you buy their product. They constantly promote perfect people with perfect teeth, perfect hair, perfect skin.. you can have this too if only you buy our product. Bullshit. You want to have a perfect body, stop filling it with chemicals and processed food and start eating what we were intended to eat, which is fresh, natural, live foods.. and you don't find them in a can.

I walk my dogs in the early evening darkness and see almost every household with a TV glowing in the living room... rarely do I walk by a house where people are home and the TV is not on. This is a fundamental problem in our society. TV teaches you to be apathetic, lazy and in need of external stimulation. And then there are the constant subliminal messages about how you should live your life.

Don't even get me started on the freaking DRUG ads that are promoted like some kind of personal care product that will make your life wonderful. The pharmaceutical companies are really just legitimate DRUG PUSHERS. They use the same tactics to get people hooked as the corner drug dealer but they have a whole lot more money and government permission to assault the public with their advertising.

Advertising by drug companies should never have been allowed. It cuts the Doctor out of the loop and basically makes him a highly paid pharmacist. Patients come in and ask for Drug X that they saw on TV. This is not the way it should be. It is ASS BACKWARDS. The Doctor needs to be the expert on the drug to prescribe. However, I think even with that system, our entire healthcare system approach is terribly flawed in that even Doctors believe there is drug to fix nearly every problem of the human race.

Juicing now a part of my diet

2006-10-18T18:19:00.000-04:00

Last Friday I received my new masticating juicer, an Omega 8003. There are other recommended juicers out there which are similar. I happened to settle on this one and I really like how easy it is to clean and how quiet it is.. big pluses for using a juicer.

The deal with a masticating juicer vs one that whirs things to death is that it literally squeezes the juice out of things. A blender/food processor type of juicer leaves a lot of the juice in the pulp so you have to juice a lot more stuff to get the juice you should. The whirring of things also heats the enzymes just enough to damage them and the physical whirring also may damage the enzymes.

With a juicer, you can get the nutrients of a lot more vegetables and fruits than you would if you tried to eat them with the pulp. The pulp has value for fiber content, but by squeezing the nutrients out you can get a powerhouse glass of nutrients and enzymes that you can't buy at any store. The juicer allows me to increase the amount of raw foods I consume without feeling like a rabbit eating only salads - although I do try to eat a good sized salad every day.

MRI results

2006-10-18T14:50:00.000-04:00

MRI is done and I have reviewed the various slices. Nothing dramatic to report except to say it has not grown and it does appear that the edges are less "spiculated" in medical terminology. On further investigation to try to figure out exactly what less spiculation means, I discovered that MRI really might not be the ideal way for me to monitor this breast lump because even a benign lesion can take up contrast dye and appear malignant. I found a very detailed article on the value of MRI with breast lumps and it turns out that they are not quite as accurate as I originally thought. MRI has value but perhaps it will not give me the information I need to monitor this.

Here is a quote from a study that I found on Breast MRI accuracy:

Contrast-enhancedmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is known toreveal breast cancer with higher sensitivity than mammography alone. Thespecificity is, however, compromised by the observation that several benignmasses take up contrast agent in addition to malignant lesions.

This means that inside that mass could be millions of dead and dying cancer cells and necrotic tumor tissue but it would still appear the same on the MRI. Sigh. Because of this I won't be getting another MRI for at least 6 months since I don't expect the size to diminish in less time than that.

SO.. I have made an appointment finally for a breast thermography test at a local facility - and there weren't many places who have this test in my area suprisingly. Not sure if the test shows no heat pattern, what that might mean, but in any case I will get the test now and check back in a month or two and see if any changes.

Here are two sample images from my MRI today compared to my prior one in July at the same facility:

October 18, 2006

July 5, 2006

The dilemma is - now that I know I have this lump and I'm not going to remove it surgically, how do I monitor it and whether it has metastisized? I suppose I can use the AMAS blood test and perhaps find another cancer marker blood test to use as a monitor. But it seems that it will be difficult to prove that what I am doing is working until months go by and I haven't gotten sick or there isn't some downward spiral in my health. I'd love to find a more definite way to monitor this and a PEM scan is just too risky to do as often as I'd like with the radiation exposure.

Breast lumps are just not as simple as say.. cholesterol level. That is much easier to track. What I need to find is a test that measures the cancer marker for this tumor so I can say today it is a particular number and then see if next month it is less.

If I find an optimal way to monitor this lump, then it will have implications for all women even those without known breast lumps. So stay tuned...

Here is a link with some ideas for other tests I plan to try for monitoring things:

http://www.cancure.org/tests_to_detect_cancer.htm

Vitamin D and Breast Cancer

2006-10-17T15:43:00.000-04:00

Very exciting news on the important role of Vitamin D in preventing and stopping breast cancer in this article...

Excerpts:

NewsTarget) According to new research published in the Journal of Clinical Pathology, women with advanced-stage breast cancer have significantly lower levels of vitamin D in their bodies than women in the early stages of the disease.

"This report, while being an observational study, clearly shows that circulating vitamin D levels are lower in advanced breast cancer as compared to early breast cancer," said Dr. Carlo Palmieri of Imperial College London. "It lends support to the idea that vitamin D has a role in the progression of breast cancer.

The Codex must be stopped

2006-10-17T13:34:00.000-04:00

From this very good article:

The United Nations World Health Organization is attempting to make the Codex Alimentarious effective in every country. It has been initiated in both Germany and Australia, according to reports. This severely limits access to dietary supplements like vitamins and minerals. For example, if the Codex is fully activated, it will be necessary for us to obtain a physician’s prescription to purchase more than RDA amounts of vitamin C. Beyond the extra cost involved, this represents a serious health threat since this substance is an important liver metabolite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are more articles:

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/codex/Codex_Alarm_by_Hammell.html
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/newsl/codex.html
http://www.healthsavers.info/CodexPage.htm
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/

One thing they can't take from us is getting our vitamins through foods by using a masticating juicer. If the Codex goes through and we are less and less able to get nutritional supplements, then this will be where we will need to turn for staying healthy. Hopefully it will not come to that. This Codex started out as a good idea - to improve the safety of food - but it has gone horribly off track in targeting nutritional supplements and limiting consumers to being able to buy supplements that are as potent as they need to be.

Mammograms can cause cancer

2006-10-14T07:27:00.000-04:00

I know I have posted on this before but I found a very good article just now on this topic that I want to include here again to continue to emphasize, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, something you won't be hearing from the media or your doctor and that is that mammograms in women under 35 can actually cause 75 cancers for every 15 breast cancers it identifies!

Read the full article here and become educated on the real facts that you won't hear from your doctor.

Excerpts from the article I'd like to highlight:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.
------------------------------------------
Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
----------------------------------------------
The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.
------------------------------------------------
While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I find to be the most deplorable about all this is - that when I discovered my own lump, the first thing the doctor wanted to do was a mammogram and in fact, the breast compression was the WORST thing that could be done to a breast with a suspcious lump. The mammogram in the end showed nothing more than we already knew - that there was a mass in my breast - so the risk was not worth the result at all. Did anyone tell me that or explain the risks? No. That is what really pisses me off. Did anyone tell me that sticking a needle into my breast carried a risk of spreading the cancer if it were in fact cancer? No! This kind of attitude and lack of information between doctor and patient really erodes my trust in all doctors. Your best protection is to BE INFORMED and I hope this blog is helping you in that endeavor.

MRI scheduled for next week

2006-10-13T23:18:00.000-04:00

I have another MRI scheduled for October 18th, just over 90 days after the first MRI on July 5th. This MRI will be at the same facility as the July 5th MRI so I should be able to compare the two better than could be done with the MRI from a different facility, which resulted in an alarming report that characterized the lump as having almost doubled in size. In reality, the scale was just different and the interpreting doctor did not bother to look at the prior MRI pictures or he would have seen that it did not change at all in size in the 5 weeks since the first MRI.

What I have learned from all of this, more than ever, is that you really have to be in charge of your own health and treatment and ask lots of questions about test results. Don't take them at face value. You are just another number to most doctors and diagnostic facilities and they really don't have the time to truly evaluate your situation. They make a lot of decisions based on a small sample of tests and they assume that all test reports are correct, when that is not necessarily the case. Question everything.

New and deadly intestinal bug comes from overuse of antibiotics

2006-10-13T15:13:00.000-04:00

OK now we are starting to see even more results of the uncontrolled use of antibiotics in our population. This year doctors and hospitals are seeing a new very infectious intestinal bug appearing in the community and everyone should be very concerned about this.

Click here for NPR Radio article (need RealMedia Free Player)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are more articles:

ATLANTA, GA, United States (UPI) -- A mutant strain of diarrhea is pushing the condition`s ongoing epidemic, the national Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta said.

Severe Clostridium difficile diarrheal disease is caused by a bug carried unknowingly by about 3 percent of the U.S. population, WebMD.com said Friday. Most antibiotics that kill normal bacteria don`t affect C. diff, which is attacked by normal bacteria found in the body.

Once confined to elderly, hospitalized patients, the new strain is infecting young, non-hospitalized people, WebMD.com said.

Symptoms range from mild diarrhea to life-threatening colon infection, WebMD.com said. The new strain can produce up to 20 times more of the toxins that normal C. diff produces, the medical Web site said.

Scientists said several factors may have caused the bug to mutate, WebMD.com said. These include the bug`s becoming resistant to commonly used antibiotics and certain heartburn drugs being linked to C. diff infections. Or, possibly, a new bug is moving across the globe.

Scientists at the University of Illinois have studied the antibiotic vancomycin`s effect on the new C. diff strain, WebMD.com said. So far, the mutant strain hasn`t shown resistance to the antibiotic.

------------------------------------------------

'Superbug' patient dies

By Barbara Jordan

AN elderly patient has died after contracting a super bug in Warrington Hospital - weeks before all medical emergencies are transferred from Halton.

Although John Lomas, 83, died of septicaemia, a urinary tract infection and a heart complication on September 2, the doctor who certified his death said the super bug was a contributory factor.

Five days after his admission, his family was told he had a gut infection - when he had in fact contracted clostridium difficile, a super bug.

"Older people are very susceptible to this," said his son, John. "But we weren't told it was infectious and my 81-year-old mother was visiting him.

Despite an admission by North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust that whenever possible patients with clostridium difficile are nursed in a side room with infection control precautions', Mr Lomas was a patient in an open ward.

Hospital bosses have promised a full investigation.

A hospital spokesman, said: "The trust should like to reassure all patients and visitors to Warrington Hospital that it does take clostridium difficile very seriously."

The closure of five medical and surgical wards at Halton Hospital started on Sunday as emergency medical care is being transferred to Warrington.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Bacterial disease turning up in pregnant women

TORONTO (Oct 13, 2006)

Cases of C. difficile-associated disease, once found almost exclusively in elderly hospitalized people, seem to be cropping up increasingly in groups not thought to be at high risk.

The latest? Pregnant women.

Research presented at a major infectious disease conference yesterday suggests a possible rise in Clostridium difficile cases in healthy pregnant women or women who have recently given birth -- a finding that is baffling both to doctors who treated the women and experts studying the disease.

"I don't want to raise an alarm about this because it's still obviously relatively uncommon," lead author Dr. Judith O'Donnell said in an interview.

She was at a loss to explain why pregnancy might put women at higher risk of developing C. difficile.

C. difficile is a bacterium which can grow out of control in the gut if the normal bacterial balance is thrown off by use of antibiotics or some other factor.

The breast cancer scam machine

2006-10-12T20:19:00.000-04:00

And now we have this article exposing yet again the huge corporate profits that are to be made off the backs of breast cancer survivors and how the hype does not really benefit finding a cure for breast cancer. There are people out there basically preying on breast cancer survivors as a group and stuffing lots of money into their own pockets under the guise of collecting money to fund breast cancer research. I wonder if they can sleep at night.

More on the down sides of conventional treatments

2006-10-12T08:18:00.000-04:00

This story further illustrates how barbaric and wrong using chemotherapy and radiation as a "treatment" for cancer is.

You need RealMedia player (free) to listen to this NPR story:

Childhood Cancer Survivors Suffer in Adulthood

The story talks about childhood cancer survivors who are dealing with multiple health problems resulting FROM THE TREATMENTS they received. They are getting second and third cancers FROM THE TREATMENTS. AND even more shocking is that these patients were not told about their higher risk of subsequent health problems and they were not tracked or advised to monitor their health more closely. This is total medical MIA. So many are getting breast cancer years later and other cancers and because they were not told of their higher risk, they did not get the kind of screening they should have to monitor their health. They were just released from the system - see ya.. good luck..

What I don't hear in this story is that if everyone could JUST understand that the underlying cause of cancer is poor health and nutrition from the low quality of food we are eating combined with the toxic assault from our environment. Instead the medical profession uses MORE toxins and damaging things to "treat" cancer and they CONTINUE to be clueless about how to truly heal chronic diseases like cancer and diabetes.

Please see this article as well on how they continue to use cause and effect only looking at SYMPTOMS as they relate to each other without looking at the UNDERLYING chronic cause.

Abraham Cherrix update

2006-10-09T10:37:00.000-04:00

I'm happy to report that Abraham Cherrix, the teen who fought for the right to be able to use alternative therapy for his cancer, and the right to refuse toxic chemotherapy, is improving and has a good chance of beating this cancer without the conventional toxic treatments. When will mainstream medicine, the American Cancer Society and others like them, wake up to the fact that cancer CAN be cured through boosting immune health and not by destroying it!

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=112337&ran=178147

Their scam has been discovered and people are not going to the slaughter like sheep as they used to. They are taking their own health care into their own hands because quite simply, our doctors can no longer be trusted to make decisions in our best interests regarding chronic diseases. The doctors have already failed most of us by allowing chronic diseases to progress instead of educating patients on how the diseases come about and how they can be stopped. Instead, they ply us with drugs to cover the symptoms in most cases or in the case of cancer, they burn it, cut it or poison it out. At what cost? Our lives...

My favorite sources of information

2006-10-07T13:19:00.000-04:00

I wanted to list these separately so that anyone interested in true healing and detoxification can find the same unbiased sources of information that can be found, to help sort out all the misinformation.

Here are the sites I visit on a regular basis to stay current with news and information that is truly aimed at helping you and not exploiting the trust of people for their own gain:

"Chemo-brain" is something you do not want!

2006-10-05T23:28:00.000-04:00

Yet another reason to reject chemotherapy can be found in this article published today in Forbes Magazine. I really don't understand why the doctors and scientists are so surprised by chemotherapy causing reduced brain function. They are POISONING patients while trying to kill cancer cells. Hello? Are you really that dense that you don't understand that could have potential long term consequences?

Jury finds for plaintiff in Prempro trial

2006-10-05T07:58:00.000-04:00

Philadelphia Jury Finds for Plaintiff in First Prempro Hormone Replacement Case in State Court
Wednesday October 4, 6:56 pm ET

Case Will Proceed to Second Phase Exploring Whether Wyeth Adequately Warned Users About the Drug's Risk

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- In the first state court case, the jury today found that plaintiff's use of Wyeth's hormone therapy Prempro was a cause of her breast cancer and awarded Jennie Nelson, age 66, $1.5 million in compensatory damages. The case will continue to a second, or liability, phase following today's jury decision in Jennie Nelson v. Wyeth, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Read the full article here.... and another one can be found here

What I find particularly repulsive is Wyeth's continued denial that they are causing cancer in people who are taking their drugs and this is just so typical of pharmaceutical companies. When will this country wake up and realize we have been sold down the river by our own doctors who are nothing more than front men and women for drug companies? Our doctors DON'T know enough about the drugs they prescribe and they are basically experimenting on us! They also don't "manage" patients and understand how drugs interact.

As a patient YOU have to be your own doctor and be informed. If you choose to rely only on your doctor today, you will suffer the health consequences of being so lazy.

New test coming soon for breast cancer screening!

2006-10-03T23:38:00.000-04:00

This is the kind of post I love to make the most.. because for a change it's good news. This article explains a new breath test for breast cancer that is being developed in Australia. It will augment existing screening tools but you still won't see me getting any more mammograms.. I will use Breast MRI, AMAS blood test and hopefully, soon, this breath test.

The Big Food Companies Don't Want You to Be Healthy

2006-10-02T20:04:00.000-04:00

Apparently the US "food industry" is going to file a lawsuit against New York City for attempting to ban the use of hydrogenated fats in restaurants in the city.

I say Hooray for NYC!

This reminds me of the tobacco companies trying to keep cigarrettes in our mouths because they made bald faced LIES when they pointed to studies that proved they weren't harmful to human health. Same thing here except there are ALREADY studies that show hydrogenated (synthetically produced) fats are carcinogenic. We can choose to not have hydrogenated fats when we shop at the grocery store finally, but we can't make that choice in a restaurant.

You would THINK that with the overwhelming evidence against hydrogenated fats that the companies who make this junk would say - hey you know what - this stuff is bad for people - let's not continue to make it - just on their consciences alone. But money and greed drives these big food corporations and in the end, it will only come home to roost when it hits them in their BIG FAT POCKETS. We, as consumers, have to speak with our dollars and stop buying their CRAP.

Here is the NewsTarget article to read more

We are NOT winning the War on Cancer

2006-10-02T18:01:00.000-04:00

This article from the UK echoes what I have been reading in the alternative health books I have found.. and that sentiment is VASTLY different from what is peddled to us in mainstream media by the big Pharma and Medical PR companies in the United States.

Breast cancer is increasing and now it is practically 1 in 3 women who will have a bout with breast cancer before the end of their lives. Is it screening that catches more breast cancer or is it the early screening catching more things that LOOK like breast cancer or is the screening itself causing the breast cancer? That is the question. I don't want to advocate avoidance of screening however the current screening methods IN THEMSELVES CAUSE CANCER as in RADIATION of the BREASTS. Am I making myself clear?

We MUST demand better screening for breast cancer and ALL cancer. Out with mammograms and biopsies and in with some new cutting edge technologies using blood tests, urine samples, Infrared and Thermography! We must start making some noise about this to rock the boat or we will continue on this downward spiral toward more and more cancer.

With that being said.. if you are concerned about cancer or breast cancer - am I going to get it or not.. I can tell you this - you are setting your body up for SOME kind of chronic illness if you keep eating the CRAP they sell us at Burger King and the grocery store and most restaurants. If you keep eating cheetos and pizza for your dinner, your health WILL decline. It's GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT just like computers...

Blood test profile since 2002

2006-10-01T14:21:00.000-04:00

Here is a screen shot of my last three years of blood tests showing various levels. Some have improved, some need work yet. If you click on the image it will show in much more readable form. Bolded items are considered "elevated" by the labs.

Other regular parts of my regimen which are new

2006-10-01T13:40:00.000-04:00

Under the guidance of my new family doctor, Dr. Andrew Lipton, I am getting PAPIMI treatments in his office. You can see information about PAPIMI in earlier posts. I am aiming to get a total of 12 treatments and after that is complete I will get a new MRI at the same facility as the first MRI in July so that I can compare directly to the July MRI.

Dr Lipton is an Osteopath and his office provides support to patient healing and education, as well as many alternative therapies such as Oxidation therapy, Chelation therapy and Vit C IV drips. I am happy to have a doctor helping me who is aware of holistic health.

My father is also becoming a patient to help solve his lower back pain, which has caused him to depend on a wheel chair recently. He is 84 and otherwise in excellent health for his age. I am trying to get both parents off prescription meds and they are both phasing them out (although my Mom did cold turkey stop of Zocor - not recommended). My Dad is getting Osteopathic manipulations with another doctor in this office with the Spencer Technique as well as treatments on the PAPIMI machine. He has had problems with this for two years, with it only worsening and he has used pain meds and epidurals in the past. I have been working on him to not continue covering up the symptoms but fix the problem and I think it is finally sinking in.

I will update on his progress as a side note in case anyone has this kind of problem and wonders if PAPIMI and the Osteopathic treatments can help. I am confident that they will.

New products added to my health regimen

2006-10-01T13:18:00.000-04:00

In additon to my earlier supplement protocol I have added B17 otherwise known as Laetrile, to my regimen. You can order it at ApricotPower.com I received 1 bottle of 500mg powder in capsules as well as a 2lb bag of Apricot Kernels. I ground the kernels in my coffee mill and store in a jar in my refrigerator. I take the kernel powder in my morning health shake. The apricot kernel meal is a little bitter so you really don't want to sprinkle it on your cereal.

The misinformation that is out there about Laetrile tries to scare people that it can be toxic and creates cyanide. However, for cancer patients, most of them receive 20 GRAMS or more of Laetrile via slow drip IV daily for around 20 days without any cyanide poisoning. The cyanide is created ONLY in the cancer cells and that is what kills the cancer cells. The Apricot Power site gives some recommendations about how much to take as well as this site - WorldWithoutCancer.org

On the WorldWithoutCancer.org site, you can find guidelines for taking it orally as a cancer patient. For the most serious cases, it is recommended to get the highest doses via IV and to do that, you have to go to Mexico or other countries that allow it's use. The U.S has banned dispensing it inside the US which is a total crime against the population of the United States. Their reason for banning it is BOGUS. Thank GOD you can buy it online but I don't know if that will always be the case since there is a HUGE movement to block it in the conventional medicine/pharma institutions in this country who don't wish to have a cancer cure that cannot be patented (aka natural).

Several of my recently purchased books discuss the Laetrile controversy and the science behind it and I list them in recent posts. The most notable is of course the book World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin.

I am taking 1-2 tablets with each meal currently and about 2 TBSP of the ground powder with my morning shakes.

Unfortunately, since I am doing many things to fight this breast cancer lump, I will never know what was most effective. However, I believe all of the things I am doing will get rid of it.

Probably the most important change I have made involves avoidance of ingested artificial anything and change to total veg/fruit/whole grain diet. Very little animal protein or fats - probably about 5-10% of my daily intake at the most. No sugar except from fruit. No processed food of ANY kind and no ingredients in my food that are not ALL natural and that includes no hydrolyzed soy protein and yeast extracts - all hidden MSG products and found in MANY organic or supposedly healthy products.

I continue to lose about 1 pound a week with my diet changes. I would be happy to ultimately get back to upper 130's for normal weight and I fully expect to achieve that. I have been upper 150's for at least 15 years now and it has not been optimal for me. I believe that birth control pills taken in my 20's and early 30's contributed to abnormal weight gain as well as the use of diet products that actually PROMOTED weight gain. Yes! That is the sad irony. Artificial sweeteners actually make it HARDER to lose weight! What a SCAM!

NYC may ban hydrogenated oils in restaurants

2006-09-28T07:54:00.001-04:00

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.

Conventional Medicine: Public Enemy No 1

2006-09-27T11:35:00.000-04:00

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:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2006-09-27T09:30:00.000-04:00

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.

Zeolite for Detoxification of Heavy Metals

2006-09-27T09:11:00.000-04:00

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:

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.

New breast screening technology being tested

2006-09-24T14:19:00.000-04:00

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.

Yet another reason to go organic

2006-09-24T14:14:00.000-04:00

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.

Wonderful new trend in hospital food

2006-09-24T13:53:00.000-04:00

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.

"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."

Excellent resource for information about toxic products

2006-09-23T19:07:00.000-04:00

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.

Yet another EXCELLENT book

2006-09-23T18:29:00.000-04:00

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.

Excellent Book!

2006-09-22T18:51:00.000-04:00

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.

More on chemicals we ingest that harm us

2006-09-22T15:29:00.000-04:00

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

2006-09-22T14:11:00.000-04:00

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

Perspective on the Spinach E Coli Contamination

2006-09-20T16:13:00.000-04:00

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:

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

2006-09-20T12:19:00.000-04:00

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

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 link

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

More evidence of the Big Coverup on Cancer

2006-09-20T11:59:00.000-04:00

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:

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abraham Cherrix improving on Immunotherapy

2006-09-19T09:03:00.000-04:00

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.

What is Hydrazine Sulfate and why does conventional medicine attack it?

2006-09-18T22:50:00.000-04:00

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.

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.³Early 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In layman's terms, Hydrazine Sulfate essentially blocks sugar from getting taken up by the cancer cells, which in the case of advanced cancer can steal glucose from your good cells, resulting in drastic weight loss (cachexia). Once again we see the politics of the large "institutions" such as the American Cancer Society and The National Cancer Institute, refusing to promote this compound or even resorting to attacking it! Are you tired of this con job we are getting from these organizations? I am...

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

2006-09-18T21:19:00.000-04:00

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.

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

2006-09-18T16:28:00.000-04:00

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.

Surgery canceled for Monday

2006-09-15T16:01:00.000-04:00

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.

PEM Test Results and Description

2006-09-15T14:11:00.000-04:00

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!

This just in - Legal Case over HRT causing cancer

2006-09-11T20:00:00.000-04:00

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

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

2006-09-11T19:37:00.000-04:00

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.