Still here February 2019!

Since the last update in 2015 a lot has happened and at this point in time I am feeling strong and healthy and I really credit my oncologist doctor Dr Robin Lifton and a new medicine Ibrance which is coupled with an aromatase inhibitor called Letrozole - for why I am still here and healthy.

One year ago today I suffered the consequences of stopping all treatment in the previous fall of 2017 and as a result, my calcium spiked and was damaging my kidneys.  That set me up for the flu which was really bad that year and both my now husband and I got the flu in early January 2017.

My flu developed into pneumonia and ultimately double pneumonia and I landed in the ER at around the third week of January 2017. My kidney function was really bad and I could not breathe. I have a history of asthma but it had not really affected me for the last several years. I still have a portable nebulizer which ultimately still did not help me when I could not breathe from the pneumonia.

My blood pressure was close to 200 for most of this time and I spent about 5 totally sleepless nights and days in the hospital. Finally I had a severe neck spasm while in the hospital (probably from lack of sleep and stress of pneumonia and breathing issues) and they refused to give me a muscle relaxer - not even one!  The hospital (which shall remain nameless) did not even have professional or drug store hot or cold packs to relieve my neck spasm!  The nurses would heat up wet towels in the microwave for me. Unbelievable

Finally on day 5 - after having the painful neck spasm for more than 24 hours - I checked myself out of the hospital and I feel that is the only thing that saved me from my life being ended in that hospital.

After not being able to eat for about a month and being on a liquid diet in the hospital I had lost quite a bit of weight and most all of my muscle. My arms and legs were sticks.  When i first left the hospital however, I had about 8 pounds of WATER WEIGHT that had to slowly drain. That is because they pumped me with water to try to help my kidneys but I think they actually did the wrong thing for me. I will never go back to that hospital ever again.

I met with my oncologist after getting out of that terrible hospital and she recommended I start on Ibrance and Letrozole and also start the Xgeva shots again. So that is what I did about one year ago today.

Now let me caution you on the cost of Ibrance. It is INSANELY expensive - like $10k PER MONTH! I was extremely fortunate to have my very good private health insurance cover the cost of this medication after my deductible has been met for the year. They cover it as a MEDICAL expense not a pharmacy expense and thus it is covered 100%.

I would have to say that the Ibrance/Letrozole combo has made a huge difference. I feel strong - have no pain or limping and even my hemoglobin is recovering after hovering around 8 for a few years.  Last test has it at 10.5 - 11 or 12 is normal - so I am almost there!

I have had to have at least 3 packed red blood cell transfusions because of the low hemoglobin. Last one was in the hospital a year ago. None needed since!

I have always worried about the potential side effects of the Xgeva shot but now have had the shot every month for a year and no side effects. Not sure if the doctor will keep me on this forever or taper off. 

My CA 27-29 has dropped to around 400 but it has not gone below 400 and is hovering between 400 and 500 in the last few blood tests. I get a full blood test every month.  At a couple of points in this journey my CA 27-29 was around 1200 - so I'll take 400 any day.

Now one of the reasons I finally got around to updating this blog is because today I found out that a doctor I recommended to my Mother for her lung cancer - Dr Arnold Smith - was charged with trying to have his wife's divorce lawyer murdered. He was actually found mentally incompetent to stand trial and still has not gone to trial for this attempted murder.  He was the doctor who Abraham Cherrix was ordered to get treatment from when he tried to go completely natural as a minor.  The government actually ordered he get some mainstream treatment and he chose Dr Arnold Smith's Mississippi clinic.  I thought this Dr had helped Abraham Cherrix and could also help my Mother.

Boy was I wrong and we regret ever sending her to this CRAZY QUACK.  My sister rescued her and my Dad from this clinic and found my Mother suffering from BEDSORES and all sorts of sores from the radiation she was getting. Nobody was overseeing her care - my poor parents were left on their own.  I was assured that the person they stayed with named ROSE would be taking care of them and that all of Dr Smith's patients stayed at this boarding house.  ROSE is also a criminal and my sister and I will be outing all of them to anyone who will listen - now that he has this sensational attempted murder charge against him.

To wrap things up - I feel that a mixture of standard oncology (no radiation or surgery) treatments and natural supplements to boost my immunity have gotten me this far.  I highly recommend taking Beta Glucan (can get from youngagain.com) and LivOn Labs Lypospheric Vitamin C, Glutathione and Alpha Lipoic - the LivOn Labs packets can be purchased on Amazon.com.

Still here - June 2015!

I do need to qualify this a bit for this update however because I have just come through a health crisis of sorts - in the Fall of 2014 it was discovered that I had breast cancer *again* and it had spread to my bones and in fact scans that were taken had the doctors describing my thoracic spine, ribs and pelvis as "moth eaten" which is not a good thing at all.

Why did this happen you might wonder?  Well I started eating the normal American diet and stopped watching what I ate. I was eating sweets and lots of animal fats and I had gained weight - probably about 60-70 lbs. 

I started to feel not so good in the Fall of 2013 and it started with me having a limp and not feeling very strong when it came to lifting things.  This progressed to me feeling that gravity was not my friend and even a simple thing like getting out of the swimming pool was difficult for me to do.  It was not a muscle weakness but as it turned out, my bones were weak.

I ended up in the ER at the end of October 2014 and remained in the hospital for 5 days while they did tests.  They found the evidence of breast cancer metastasized to my bones on the CT scan and they biopsied my old breast lump - which was still sort of there - and said it had evidence of cancer again there.

I went home and vowed to switch my diet once again. In the hospital I'd been visited by a female oncologist and all the nurses said she was really good so I made every effort to become her patient on the outside. 

She told me she wanted me to go on a bone drug - Zometa - and chemo and that I should get the radiotherapy to areas of my bones where there was the most cancer.  She also wanted me on aromatase inhibitors, which blocked the formation of estrogen from other hormones. This is given only to women post menopause.

I told her - I would go on the bone drug only and I'd try the aromatase inhibitor but no chemo.

I will go into more detail in the next post - but after about 8 weeks sleeping in a recliner chair and needing a cane to walk  and taking two injections of Zometa (now monthly) I was finally able to sleep in my own bed again and walk without a cane.  I dropped about 50 lbs because of my restricted diet as well. 

I stopped the aromatase inhibitor because I didn't like the side effects, which for me were shortness of breath and I am talking severe shortness of breath.  Instead I started using natural progesterone cream, DIM and natural estriol cream.

At the beginning of 2015 they switched me to Xgeva because they had a really nice health insurance deductible co-pay deal and I have continued to improve on the monthly bone injections alone. 

I mostly stayed on the whole grains/vegetables/little animal protein diet but started to slip off it a little in the last month or so and of course my CA-27-29 numbers in my monthly blood tests have been steadily rising - so back on the no dairy and restricted animal protein diet I go again...

I also started taking low dose tamoxifen - 20 mg per week instead of per day.  I found studies which supported the use of low dose tamoxifen as being just as effective as the regular dose but without the bad side effects.

I do have one problem that may not resolve on its own and that is two spinal compression fractures which sound a lot worse than they really are.  No pain really from them but it pitches my spine a bit forward and makes it difficult for me to straighten up. I believe these compression fractures happened from a fall I had while my bones were weak - I slipped on a wet floor and fell on my back in a store. No I didn't want to sue them over it - it would have not made any difference to the outcome.

I just wanted anyone who might come upon this blog to know that a) I am still here and b) I almost wasn't still here because I became careless with my diet.  I am totally convinced now that a diet in whole grains, beans, vegetables and low animal protein is really the best diet for overall health for me and probably for most people.

Update: Still Alive and Kickin

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

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

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.

*Update*

Just today (February 17, 2019) I discovered that Dr Arnold Smith was arrested for trying to have his wife's divorce attorney murdered and he still has not gone to trial even though the attorney was tipped off about the plot and ended up shooting one of the hitmen and killing them.  Dr Smith was found not competent mentally to stand trial and ended up with OUTPATIENT mental treatment so he was able to go home and be with his wife while awaiting trial.  This guy is a nut and a fraud of the highest order. My sister and I plan to share our experience with this fraud and my mother and how it likely ended her life much earlier - with anyone associated with Dr Smith's murder trial.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to prevent lymphedema after breast cancer

By LAURAN NEERGAARD – Dec 30 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

...

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

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

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

Thermograms are a Much Safer Alternative to Mammograms

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

Here are excerpts from the excellent article on Natural News :

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

Breast thermography uses heat to detect abnormalities

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

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

...

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

....

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

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

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

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

About the author

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

Read the full article for even more information.

Study: New way to spot breast cancer shows promise

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

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

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

By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT Scans Emit Massive Doses of Radiation, Promote Cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article here on Natural News

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

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

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

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

A Single Dose of Radiation is Enough

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

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

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

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

Arleen's Story

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

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

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

About IOERT

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

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

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

What Women Need to Know

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

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

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

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

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

About IntraOp

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

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

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

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

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

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

Studies and Results

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

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

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

IP6 Offers Cancer Prevention and Cure, and Much More

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

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

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

Food Sources or Supplements?

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

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

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

Supplementing with Inositol+Cal-Mag IP6

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

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

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

About the author

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

Report Links Increased Cancer Risk to CT Scans

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

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

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

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

Full article

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

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

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

Here is their pro-CT Scan blurb:

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

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

But then, I find this info:

News Target

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

The Budwig Diet for the Cure and Prevention of Cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some other links to follow on this topic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

An abstract of the study is available online.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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...