Cancer Confidential Update r

7/28/2019 Cancer Confidential Update r

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cancer-confidential-update-r 1/61

CANCER CONFIDENTIAL UPDATER

Further reports for “Cancer Confidential” subscribers.

February 2010

By Keith Scott-Mumby

This is a “printer-friendly” document, designed to save ink and paper. Nothing fancy!

Copyright © 2008 by Keith Scott-Mumby, Scott-Mumby Author Services,

6180 Lake Geneva Dr, Reno, NV 89511, USA.

Dr Keith Scott-Mumby asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be adapted or reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author and publisher.

This information is provided as information only and may not be construed as medical advice or

instruction. No action should be taken based solely on the contents of this publication. Readersshould consult appropriate health professionals on any matter relating to their health and well-

being.

The publisher is not responsible for errors or omissions.



Cancer Confidential Update

Page | 2

Important Disclaimer

All content within this book is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech laws

in all the civilized world. The information herein is provided for educational and entertainment

purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Dr. Keith

Scott-Mumby MD, PhD assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material.

Therefore no warranty of any kind, whether expressed or implied, is given in relation to this

information or any of the external services referred to. This is a comprehensive limitation of

liability that applies to all damages of any kind, including (without limitation) compensatory;

direct, indirect or consequential damages; loss of data, income or profit; loss of or damage to

property and claims of third parties. Neither shall Professor Scott-Mumby be liable for any

content of any external internet sites listed and services listed.

The statements made about products and services have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food

and Drug Administration. They are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any

condition or disease.

Always consult your own licensed medical practitioner if you are in any way concerned about

your health. You must satisfy yourself of the validity of the professional qualifications of any

health care provider you contact as a result of this book.

If you cannot agree to these terms, destroy the book if you downloaded it free, or ask for a

refund and then destroy it, if payment was made.

These are serious issues and intense pressure often falls on publishers of such needed

information, from parties who do not wish you to know anything other than what they tell you

is true. We ask you not to create problems by irresponsible use or spread of this valuable

information.

All trademarks, registered trademarks and service marks mentioned in the book are the

property of their respective owners.




Page | 3

Contents

1. This Is The Age Of “Personalized Oncology” 4

2. Say Hello To Avemar. It’s Good! 63. CAT Scans Cause Cancer 10

4. CoQ10 Is A Powerful Cancer Fighter 13

5. The Enzyme Study 14

6. Are Antioxidants Bad For Cancer Patients? 17

7. Cancer Orthodoxy Uses Anecdotes When It Suits Them 20

8. Furore Over Mammograms Protocol 27

9. Farrah, The Inside Scoop On Why She Died 34

10. Cancer And Genes Means Very Little, Really 35

11. Corruption In Cancer Research 36

12. I Smell Cancer Here 37

13. Blood Group Matters 38

14. Prostate Symptoms. Be Aware, Not Beware 39

15. Testicular Cancer And Testosterone 40

16. The Red Meat Question 42

17. Spirulina Boosts Immunity 45

18. Frankincense. The Greatest Gift Ever? 46

19. Wine Is Good Against Some Cancers 49

20. SKULLCAP. Scutellaria baicalensis 52

21. Procrit And Aranesp 5322. Is This A J oke? 55

23. Mercury Amalgam Kills Natural Killer (NK) Cells 56

24. Small Steps (in nutrition) 59




Page | 4

1. This is the age of “personalized oncology”

The latest buzzword in cancer is "personalized oncology." The phrase originated mid-decade, especially in relation to nanotechnology. John Niederhuber, MD, director of theNational Cancer Institute, endorsed personalized oncology in his Cancer Bulletin

editorial of August 19, 2008, where he wrote about the dawn of a new era of "personalized cancer medicine," with "specific, targeted therapeutic solutions."

This reflects a general development in treatments that has been stylized as “personalized medicine”.

Consider the following proposition:

Every human being on planet Earth is 5ft 9inches tall, weighs 150 pounds, blonde hair,

blue eyes, male, and with dark skin, right? No? You mean we’re all different? Not

according to the medical profession. Doctors and the drug industry regard everyone asbeing the same. We’re all supposed to be “average”, whatever that means. The joke is

that nobody is average. I’ll say that again: nobody is average, not one single human.

Take height. The average height for a white man is 75 inches at age 25 years. But less

than 0.1% of the population measures 75 inches. Many are close, say between 74 and

76 inches; many more measure between 70 inches and 80 inches; and so on. But very

few are right on 75 inches!

Height of course is only one genetic trait: add hair color, gender, eye color and skin,

making just 5 traits and virtually nobody is close to average. Investigate a lot of traitsand … just forget it.

So why do doctors and the drug industry persist in believing the same medicine at the

same dose is right for everyone? We are not all the same and very, very few of us are

“average”, or even close to it. To treat us as such is bad medicine. But it is also very

bad science.

In fact even the sluggardly FDA has embraced this concept. An FDA position paperpublished as long ago as March 2005, took a stand in supporting personalized medicine.

They even hinted that it would soon become considered malpractice, if doctors did notestablish what each individual’s tolerance and type was, and amend treatmentaccordingly.

No sign of that happening yet. But it may come.




Page | 5

Meantime, personalized medicine has developed a face in oncology. Not before time.This is the future and, if you are facing cancer, be sure you work with an oncologistwho understand and practices personalized oncology!

It’s all about our genomes. There are countless tiny variations in our DNA that make us

all unique. There is no real “human genome”; there are an infinite number of humangenomes.

Unfortunately, this is an area of skill and commitment. At this time, it is doubtful if thecancer “mafia” are committed to personalized oncology, since current procedures putprofits before patients and convenience before scientific credibility. But change will onlycome if patients demand it.

Again, I must repeat my caveat that medicine is better practiced elsewhere in the worldthan the USA and with more integrity and less focus on profit.

The Past Is Outdated

Treatment still chosen based on predetermined protocols for particular stages of thedisease, usually according to universally-defined tumors rather than individualcharacteristics. These protocols are chosen based on empirical evidence derived fromprevious clinical trials. A particular drug or combination of drugs is favored because onaverage it performs somewhat better than another combination. Or at least it does inthe rather shaky and propped up scientific trials that are carried out.

Let me remind you here of the philosophy of the pharmaceutical industry, which is that “scientific studies” are concerned only with creating some credibility for an expensivedrug and not about efficacy at all.

In reality, current therapy isn’t about science at all, but about consensus. The vastmajority of oncologists suggest treatment protocols which are merely the standardizedrecommendations of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), or someother “authority”, rather than individualizing the choice of drugs based on thecharacteristics of the individual in their office.

Nowadays, patients are demanding better. Blogging at Medscape.com, oncologist and

pathologist Cary A. Presant, MD explains the public relations dilemma that doctors nowface:

"The first implication of personalizing oncology is that the way in which wecommunicate with patients has to change. Because patients are seeing personalizedcancer care as a recurring emphasized theme in newspapers and television, it is




Page | 6

important for each oncologist to assure patients that their treatment plans are optimized for personalized therapy."

In other words, oncologists need to reassure their patients that they are indeed getting"the best and most up-to-date care...." But unfortunately, Dr. Presant does not address

the question of whether this in fact is true. Otherwise, he’s advocating that doctors justlie to people, to continue getting their business!

Make up your own mind. Don’t be bullied and browbeaten. Threaten a malpractice suitand a complaint to the licensing authority, even before treatment, making it clear youwill do so automatically, if you don’t get “personalized oncology”

At the minimum, the following should happen:

Surgeons must be informed that fresh tumor tissue removed during biopsies oroperations needs to be preserved for microarray DNA testing and for chemotherapysensitivity or drug induced apoptosis. The drug(s) chosen for therapy must showactivity against the patient’s OWN tumor, not some laboratory line.

However, this regimen (entirely scientific and sound) has been around since the 1980s,supported by doctors like me, yet has been resisted tooth-and-nail by the cancerestablishment. They hate all that extra work and expense and would rather give theirpatient standardized treatments, fully knowing that it will kill a significant number of those people they are pretending to help.

I repeat, standardized chemotherapy does not work.

_____________________________________________

2. Say Hello To Avemar. It’s Good!

Studies have shown that Avemar is a potent natural compound is effective against a

wide variety of cancers including, breast, colorectal and skin cancers. You can safely

use it while receiving chemotherapy. So if you want to combine conventional treatments

and alternatives, this one is especially good to know.

It may also be preventative. Too early to make claims.

Avemar is often said to be the brain child of Hungarian doctor and Nobel Prize winner

Dr. Szent Györgyi (the guy who discovered vitamin C) but was actually originated by Dr.

Mate Hidvegi. Hidvegi holds the patent.




Page | 7

Dr. Mate Hidvégi

Dr. Mate Hidvégi, was born in Budapest, Hungary on November 9, 1955. He studied,

then taught at what is now Budapest University of Technology and Economics.

In Hungary, Hidvégi was one of the pioneers in the development of technologies of mass-production of instantized herbal extracts for therapeutic use. Between 1988-1990Hidvégi was Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Grain Research Laboratory of the CanadianGrain Commission, Winnipeg, Canada.

Returning to Hungary in 1990, Hidvégi started to work for enterprises in the naturalmedicine industry. In 1996, Hidvégi was co-founder of Biromedicina. Hidvégi holds aPhD and a Dr. Habil in chemistry and honorary professorship at the Jewish University,

Budapest. For his academic works, he received the Gold Medal of the President of Hungary (2000), the Scheiber Prize of the Minister of Culture and Education, Hungary(2001), The NutrAward in the USA (2006) and the Jedlik Prize of the Hungarian PatentOffice (2007).http://www.matehidvegi.com/

More than 100 papers published in prestigious journals have reviewed clinical and

experimental results with this extract, and it’s now a medically approved substance for

cancer treatment in Europe.

In Hungary, where the product was developed, the mortality rate of cancer stoppedrising and began declining after its introduction and in the wake of its increasingly wide-

spread use. In Hungary’s neighboring countries, where they have not learned of

Avemar, the cancer death rate has continued to rise.

Researchers and oncologists from points all around the globe, including UCLA

(University of California at Los Angeles), the Universities of Sheffield and Barcelona,




Page | 8

Israeli clinics, the University of Tel Aviv, the Blokhin Oncological Centre in Moscow and

the University of Genoa - some 20 countries in all - joined in the research.

Avemar comes from a patented process that ferments wheat germ with baker’s yeast.

The result is a supplement that performs three vital functions in the body:

1. Helps the body regulate metabolism — and more efficiently create energy from

the nutrients we eat

2. Boosts the body’s immune system — and helps create stronger T-cells and

macrophages (the cells that eat invaders)

3. Helps the body target "bad" cells and eliminate them — by shutting off the

"cloaking mechanism" that tells the body not to kill cancer cells

Your body has a miraculous frontline defense of natural killer (NK) cells. These are the

cells that jump on invading bacteria and viruses as well as mutated cells like cancer. An

NK cell has receptors that tell it to either kill or move on once it attaches to a potential

invader.

The NK cell is like a cop that stops someone suspicious, demands to see an ID, and

asks a few questions. If it decides the target cell is "innocent," it moves on. If not, it will

zap the rogue cell!

This means any kind of invading or mutated cell is only able to grow and thrive if it

convinces the body’s NK "police" that it’s a normal cell. Unfortunately, that’s exactly

what cancer cells do.

Cancer "lies" to the NK cells, telling the NK’s receptors, "It’s okay, I’m a good guy." It

does this with a surface molecule called MHC-1 that acts like a "fake ID". Once the NK

cell sees this disguise molecule, it accepts the intruder and moves on.

This is where Avemar comes into play. Avemar suppresses the cancer cell’s ability to

display the MHC-1 molecule, so it can no longer fool the NK cells. The result? Cancer

cells get destroyed swiftly and removed.

Also, according to a 2002 study, American and Spanish researchers showed Avemar has

a direct influence on the metabolism of tumor cells which prevents the cancer cells fromreproducing themselves and from carrying out the all-important DNA synthesis. As a

result, the tumor does not develop further and the cancer cells, owing to Avemar's

effect in other areas, die off, either on their own or under the influence of the body's

cancer-killing mechanisms.




Page | 9

Worldwide Acceptance For Avemar

The Hungarian medical authorities registered Avemar as medical nutriment for cancer

patients on 1 July 2002 with the following approved label: 'Indications: Avemar is

recommended for use by patients suffering from cancer as a supplement to clinical

oncological treatments (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, etc.'

After Avemar's registration in 2002, it was not long before the Czech medical authorities

also registered it as a medical nutriment for cancer patients. Soon after this, the

Bulgarian authorities also registered and approved Avemar as a medical nutriment for

cancer patients. In Australia, the product falls into the category of therapeutic products

for use in immune-modulation therapy, while, in Austria, it is already paid for entirely by

the National Health service.

In Europe (including in Hungary), Avemar is currently the only non-prescription product

with an officially approved label available on the market specifically for cancer patients.

The FDA classifies Avemar as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe), which means is can

be used in foods, beverages and dietary supplements. Avemar is not that different from

bread (so wheat and gluten allergics beware!)

The great thing is you can take Avemar alongside conventional therapy (surgery,

chemotherapy and radiation therapy). It’s not a “one or the other” choice.

This universal acceptance is simple to explain: Avemar works!

A report given by Prof. Ferenc Jakab, the department director and chief physician at the

Uzsoki Street Hospital in Budapest, was even featured on CNN news. Prof. Jakab

discussed a test performed at the hospital, again emphasised that significant

differences can be observed in patients undergoing treatment which includes Avemar

when compared with those who do not receive Avemar.

(176 patients suffering from colorectal cancer took part in the test, most of which were

at stages 3 and 4. The average follow-up period was 18.3 months. At the beginning of

the test, the global prognosis for the Avemar group was significantly worse than that

for the control group. The conclusions of the test were that, when combined withsurgery, radio- or chemotherapy, Avemar was able to reduce significantly the formation

of metastases and lengthen survival time in colorectal cancer patients.)

Prof. Miklós Kásler, director general of the National Oncological Institute, said, "It is not

a dietary supplement, but it is a very important new treatment, registered for cancer

treatment."




Page | 10

You can find Avemar in the U.S. under the brand name Avé. It’s

recommended as a dietary supplement in a once-a-day, instant drink mix.

_____________________________________________

3. Cat Scans Cause Cancer

A lot of my subscribers will be too young to remember the mass chest X-ray days of the

50s and 60s, when a truck would turn up at the office or school with mobile equipment

and take x-rays of everyone. Screening for TB and lung cancer. Good idea, what?

Well, no. What actually happened was that these x-ray screening programs CAUSED

more cancers than they "detected". Those who had been screened had a far higher rateof cancers; so much so that mass x-ray screening was dropped.

The same thing has happened with mammograms but the entrenched doctors of the

cancer industry are not letting on. The truth is already out there, showing

mammograms cause more than they "detect", but they won't admit it and stop killing

women for profit.

Now the latest shock: CAT scans are pretty dangerous and nobody has been paying

enough attention. Not until Rebecca Smith-Bindman MD did some poking around. She

noticed that radiation doses from CT scans are often high and vary widely, andexcessively high doses may contribute substantially to future cancers. Her findings are

published in a new study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

CT scans are noninvasive medical tests that combine special X-ray equipment and

computers to produce detailed cross sectional images of the body. The number of CT

scans performed has exploded over the last three decades, growing from about 3

million yearly in 1980 to about 70 million in 2007.

The new research comes in the wake of the discovery earlier this year that more than

200 stroke patients at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles had received morethan eight times the necessary radiation dose when undergoing CT scans. What was

even stranger was the very large variation in dose for what was supposed to be the

same procedure. Even the FDA is concerned (polite cough... A-hem)

In Smith-Bindman's study, researchers evaluated radiation doses given to 1,119

patients getting CT scans and found that the differences in radiation exposure were




Page | 11

dramatic: much higher than needed but also very variable. Most dramatic, she says,

was the dose and the dose range for a multiphase abdomen and pelvic series. While

the median dose was 31, the range was from 6 to 90. That's more than a 10-fold

difference.

Her team even went on to assess the lifetime cancer risk linked to the CT scan. They

estimated that one in 270 women and one in 600 men who got a CT coronary

angiogram at age 40 would develop cancer from that scan. That's very high in my book.

The message from Smith-Bindman's timely research is the need for doctors and

patients to become more aware of the risks and she also emphasizes the need for more

oversight of the scans. This issue pinpoints an old loop of logic - because a lot of

peoople are doing it, doesn't suddenly make it safe or effective. Popular isn't the same

as good, in any degree.

Make sure you are not lulled and just believe this new "magic eye" is OK, because all

hospitals are doing it. Make the doctor justify the need or consider refusing and making

them work for their diagnosis.

[Just to ram this home, another study by investigators at the National Cancer Institute

(USA), also estimated the risk of cancer attributable to CT scans. They concluded that

29,000 future cancers could be related to the 70 million CT scans that were performed

in the U.S. in 2007. This includes an estimated 14,000 cases resulting from scans of the

abdomen and pelvis; 4,100 from chest scans; 4,000 from head scans; and 2,700 from

CT angiograms. One-third of these projected cancer cases would occur following scansperformed on people ages 35 to 54. Two-thirds of the cancers would be in women.

NEED I SAY THIS? These may be US statistics but the risks will be the same, whatever

territory you live in!]

STOP PRESS: TUESDAY, Feb. 9, 2009 (just as I am typing the finishing touches to

this update): The U.S. Food and Drug Administration unveiled a plan Tuesday

to reduce radiation exposure from three types of increasingly widespread

imaging procedures, CAT scans, nuclear medicine studies and fluoroscopy.

These three imaging techniques are the largest contributors to total radiation exposure.

They use much higher radiation doses than other imaging procedures, such as standard

X-rays, dental X-rays and mammography, potentially increasing the lifetime risk of

cancer, the agency said.




Page | 12

In addition to the cancer risk, accidental radiation exposure can result in injuries, such

as burns, hair loss and cataracts.

While the extent of the cancer risk is a topic of debate, most experts agree that

exposure to unnecessary radiation from these devices should be reduced. For example,

the radiation from a CT scan of the abdomen is the equivalent of about 400 chest X-

rays -- and a dental X-ray has about half the radiation of chest X-ray, the FDA said.

To help reduce unnecessary radiation exposure, the FDA is looking for the adoption of

two principles. First, each procedure must be justified. Second, the dose of radiation

needs to be the minimum dose required.

Some suggestions under consideration include requiring the devices to display and

record the radiation dose being administered. The FDA said it may also require that the

devices record and transmit the radiation dose used to a patient's electronic medical

record as well as to a national radiation doses database.

The FDA also wants professional organizations to continue to develop radiation

reference levels for medical imaging procedures and to develop one or more national

registries for radiation doses.

In addition, the FDA wants patients to become aware of their radiation exposure. The

agency's plan is to develop a medical imaging history card for patients to keep track of

their radiation exposure.

According to the Associated Press, this announcement comes five months after the FDAbegan investigating reports of problems with CT scans at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in

Los Angeles. More than 250 patients were exposed to excess radiation, with many

reporting losing hair and skin redness. The FDA has also begun investigating similar

problems at two other California hospitals.

[SOURCE: Feb. 9, 2010, news release, U.S. Food and Drug Administration]

_____________________________________________




Page | 13

4. CoQ10 Is A Powerful Cancer Fighter.

Researchers in Tokyo gave rats a carcinogen that promotes colon cancer. The rats were

divided into three groups. One group was fed a regular diet. The second group got a

low dose of CoQ10. The third got a medium dose.

The results were significant.

Both of the groups that received CoQ10 had reductions in abnormal crypts (an early

sign of colon cancer) of up to 77%. Ultimately, the results of this study suggested that

CoQ10 held cancer in check even when exposed to this carcinogen. [Sakano K,

Takahashi M, et al. Suppression of azoxymethane-induced colonic premalignant lesion

formation by coenzyme Q10 in rats. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006 Oct; 7 (4): 599-603]

Another study done at the University of Texas at Austin documented 10 cases of cancer

patients who unexpectedly survived when treated with CoQ10. [Folkers K, Brown R,Judy WV, Morita M. Survival of cancer patients on therapy with coenzyme Q10. Biochem

Biophys Res Commun. 1993 Apr 15;192(1): 241-5]

CoQ10 works by blocking the free radicals that can ultimately damage the DNA in your

cells. It also helps re-energize the immune system cells that get suppressed by cancer.

It restores their ability to fight back and attack the cancer cells.

Researchers in Denmark studied a group of breast cancer patients. They gave them

CoQ10, plus a combination of other antioxidants and essential-fatty acids. The result?

The entire group had a partial remission of the cancer.

[3 Lockwood K, Moesgaard S, Folkers K. Partial and complete regression of breast

cancer in patients in relation to dosage of coenzyme Q10. Biochem Biophys Res

Commun 1994 Mar 30;199 (3):1504-8]

Interestingly, 2 of the patients received larger doses of CoQ10 (390 mg) and their

tumors disappeared altogether.

Yet CoQ10 is one of the most overlooked nutrients. It’s expensive and most people do

not appreciate its value enough. Studies on mice showed an increase of 50% extension

of life span. How valuable is that!

Coenzyme Q10 shows great in alleviating the effects of cancer treatment, protecting

patients undergoing chemotherapy. Studies showed that patients taking 90 mg of this

compound experienced less pain and increase in appetite and decreased metastases.




Page | 14

Studies using 300 -900 mg, reported partial or total remission.

The US government doesn’t even have a daily recommended intake (DRI or the old

RDA) for it. In fact I know of no government that takes this vital nutrient seriously

enough to even suggest a healthy level.

I’d set it around 100 mg minimum and recommend 200 - 400 mg, if you can afford it.

Warning: many popular drugs, notably cholesterol-lowering drugs like statins, deplete

supplies of CoQ10.

Dr. Al Sears has a new super-absorbable form of CoQ10 (ubiquinol), which he says is

superior and has science to back up his claim. You can download a free pdf file giving

you more information here:

http://www.alsearsmd.com/pdf/NewDeliveryBoostCoQ10.pdf

Al recommends getting 50 mg of the new form of CoQ10 daily. That’s equivalent to 400

mg of regular CoQ10.

The only natural source of CoQ10 is red meat, especially organ meat, and that’s where

vegetarians lose out if they are not careful to supplement it. But today’s commercially-

raised, grain-fed beef is a poor source; you need organic and grass-fed beef.

_____________________________________________

5. The Enzyme Study

If you have read all of “Cancer Confidential”, you will know I wrote flatteringly (but

correctly reported) data about Dr. Nick Gonzalez’s follow through of the early work of

Donald Kelley’s. He got great results; certainly better than those on which the

pancreatic cancer drug Gemcitabine went to market.

Eventually, an official clinical trial was sanctioned, in which Big Pharma and holisticremedies would square off in a showcase fight!

Unfortunately, the fighting started too early and amid violent acrimony and counter-

accusations, it finally collapsed and was forgotten. See Ralph Moss's very insightful

Newsletter of June 21,2008, "A Great Opportunity Lost" at:

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/content/view/122/2/lang,english/




Page | 15

Then, to everyone’s complete surprise, the trial results were abruptly published on

August 17th, 2009: "Pancreatic Proteolytic Enzyme Therapy Compared With

Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer."

This Phase III trial was to compare Gonzalez's regimen for pancreatic cancer which

included "proteolytic (digestive) enzymes, nutritional supplements, detoxification (coffee

enemas ), organic diet (70% raw or minimally cooked); skin brushing and cleansing;

salt and soda baths, liver flush, clean sweep, etc." 32 patients chose Dr. Gonzalez's

Enzyme regimen and were managed by him; 23 patients chose conventional

chemotherapy and most of them were managed at Columbia University-19 of those 23

received Gemcitabine(Gemzar), Capecitabine (Xeloda) and Docetaxel (Taxotere).

Even more surprising was the result. The oncologists won outright; Gonzalez was

trounced (Shhh! Don’t tell Suzanne Somers! She likes him)

In fact the outcome was as follows: "Those who chose gemcitabine-based

chemotherapy survived more than three times as long (14.0 months) vs 4.3 months

median survival for those on the enzyme protocol. The chemo patients also had a better

quality of life than those who chose proteolytic enzyme treatment."

Those of us who believe in alternative therapies have to put together a cogent

explanation for why this happened.

To begin with, Gonzalez’s initial trial many years earlier had featured cases who had

been given a full round of chemo and given up as terminal.

It may be that this initial onslaught on the tumor was important. It is almost impossible

to put the brakes on an extremely aggressive metastatic cancer without employing

chemotherapy to disrupt tumor cell division by targeting DNA within the nucleus.

Molecularly targeted therapies can be invaluable in simultaneously inhibiting cell cycle

signaling from growth factors (e.g. VEGF, EGFR, PDGFR,etc.), proteins, genes, signal

transduction molecules, oncogene products ,etc. Examples of some targeted therapies

include: Tarceva, Erbitux, Avastin, Sutent, Sorafenib, Vatalanib, etc.

Surprisingly, Tarceva (inhibits EGFR) was recently approved (in combination with

Gemzar) for pancreatic cancer even though it only extended survival by two weeks:

median survival 6.24 months v 5.91 months. (J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 20;25:1960-

1966.)

It may also have been significant that the chemo patients were receiving hospital-based

supportive care at Columbia (e.g., pain medication, noninvasive biliary stents, etc.) so




Page | 16

their quality of life reports may have been superior to the enzyme patients treated at

Dr. Gonzalez's office.

But much more likely, it was the Gemcitabine which improved the symptoms in the

Columbia Group. Several compelling studies have demonstrated that even though

Gemcitabine did not produce objective responses (radiographically confirmed reductions

in tumor size), there was a measureable "clinical benefit" defined as an improvement in

pain, performance status or weight without a deterioration in any other factor-although

the objective response rate for patients with measurable disease was only 11 percent, a

clinical benefit was observed in 27 percent. ["A phase II trial of gemcitabine in patients

with 5-FU-refractory pancreas cancer." (Ann Oncol. 1996;7:347-353.) "Improvements in

survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with

advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial." (J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2403-2413.)

This all adds up to the fact that the trial was judged on criteria at which Gemcitabinewas likely to excel (not just survival).

A third and less comfortable factor is the personal skill of Dr. Gonzalez. I have heard it

said that he rough rides the patients through their treatment, passing off unpleasant

reactions as a “healing crisis” (which I find dangerously misguided). In fact so many

patients died, rather than survived, that one major cancer charity stopped sending

patients to Dr. Gonzalez.

If this last is true, it needs facing. And maybe we’ll get another chance (give it lots of

time). It would be a pity if so much was laid on one man’s shoulders and he messed itup, given the golden chance to prove something useful. Of course he has given the

opposition ammunition to say alternatives don’t work and cost lives.

Who now knows the truth? But this has to be said.

_____________________________________________

This next piece is somewhat related…




Page | 17

6. Are Antioxidants Bad For Cancer Patients?

You may have heard that taking antioxidants while undergoing chemo and radiation will

harm your survival. So the majority of oncologists claim. It’s all cut and dried; there is

scientific “proof” (they say).

Rot.

Let me tell you what all this is based on.

A major study entitled "Beta-Carotene and Alpha-Tocopherol Chemoprevention of

Second Primary Malignancies in Head and Neck Cancer Patients", was published in

2005, which started the row. It was bad science, which is why it got off on the wrong

foot. The lead author was Isabelle Bairati. The study was sponsored by the National

Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) and took place at Laval University in Quebec.

Bairati and her team purportedly found that antioxidants beta-carotene and vitamin E

did indeed reduce the unpleasant side effects of chemo and radiation treatment—but at

a price: it seemed that the supplements reduced the effectiveness of the treatment.

Survival times were reduced, they said.

Well the nutriphobic oncologists jumped on this and widely trumpeted that all

supplements, in all conditions, with all treatments were BAD.

This is not what the study actually showed but their hooting response was inevitable.

However—it didn’t stop there. The Bairati team (who I infer were not in any way

incompetent) actually corrected their position in 2008, with a second paper entitled

"Should Supplemental Antioxidant Administration Be Avoided During Chemotherapy and

Radiation Therapy?" (Journal of the National Cancer Institute (June 4, 2008).

In this more recent paper, they said the earlier findings were mistaken and all the fuss

was really about a tiny sub-group of people who had lung cancer and didn’t stop

smoking while they had radiation treatment. Take them out of the equation, recalculate

the statistics, and—presto!-suddenly antioxidants are GOOD. Not only did they reduce

the terrible side effects but they actually extended survival times.

But there was more even than this. It seems that the “failed” beta-carotene was really

synthetic stuff and if blood levels of DIETARY beta-carotene* were used as a measure,

then it was definitely beneficial.




Page | 18

Participants who had the highest dietary intake of beta carotene had a 39% reduction

in severe adverse effects (which was statistically significant). There was a similar trend

with vitamin E (alpha tocopherol) but not statistically significant.

More excitingly, participants with highest plasma beta-carotene had an incredible 33%

percent reduction in the cancer recurrence rate. That’s WAY beyond what chemo and

radiation can achieve.

You see how facts get massaged or screwed around, in what the public are gulled into

believing is firm, fixed, “true” science?

It started out as antioxidants will kill you (which oncologists still put about) and the real

story is that antioxidants will save your life and reduce the misery of what the

oncologists do to you.

Phew!

My own take on this, by the way:

I wouldn’t dream of using any of the tocopherols or beat-carotene as significant

antioxidants. I expect the patients to get them from a decent diet and juicing.

I have always used vitamin C in large doses (because it definitely kills cancer cells,

selectively, at blood concentrations of over 3%) and glutathione. In addition DMSO and

hydrazine sulfate have significant antioxidant effects. I give all these four agents

intravenously.

None of my patients who had opted for chemo even lost their hair!

*Carotenes are found extensively in colored foods, notably the orange ones (carrots,

cantaloupe, capsicums, sweet potato). But also in green leaf vegetables, such as

spinach, chard, broccoli and chard.

Attack On Antioxidants

It’s quite clear there is a large and orchestrated attack on antioxidants. Oncologists

HATE the idea of Nature’s way.

A few years ago (Sept 2005), that good old institute for scientific integrity and unbiased

news, The American Cancer Society, published in its journal a pig-ignorant attack on

antioxidants, complete with a full blaze of bigotry, lies and scientific fraud.




Page | 19

The author was by Gabriella D'Andrea, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan-

Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York. Go ahead, sue me Gabriella!

The article, titled "Use of Antioxidants During Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy Should

be Avoided." Naturally, the ACS cronies in the media blew it up as the definitive

scientific position.

It was nothing of the sort.

Ralph Moss, one of our best cancer journalists, investigators and commentators, has

done an extensive rebuttal on Dr. D'Andrea's article and you should get it, if you are at

all concerned about the truth, from Ralph’s extensive website at:

www.cancerdecisions.com

Ralph accuses Dr. Andrea of citing ambiguous and/or negative studies but

simultaneously downplays (and frequently fails to mention) positive ones.

She’s cunning too. She claims (quite correctly) that only large-scale, randomized trials

provide a valid basis for therapeutic recommendations. Yet this woman uses only

laboratory data to back up the opinionated claim that harm results from the use of

antioxidants.

One rule for them and one rule for us, right?

Also Dr. Andrea exaggerates the degree to which the laboratory data diverge in regard

to the safety and efficacy of antioxidant therapy, calling such data "conflicting and

confusing." In fact, the great preponderance of data suggests a harmless or even a

synergistic effect with most high-dose dietary antioxidants (it’s only confusing if you

want to believe the few scrappy studies that conflict with the overwhelming evidence

that supplements are beneficial).

Remember her piece was written shortly after the misleading result from the first Bairati

trial outlined above, which she (Bairati) eventually corrected but, of course, Dr. Andrea

did not correct her paper.

Andrea is tricky, too. She resorts to "red herring" arguments, citing negative studies in

the realm of cancer prevention, rather than quoting studies that focus on what she was

supposed to commenting on: the issue of concurrent chemo treatment and

supplements.

Dr. Andrea, of course, dare not attack everyday foods. It’s a proven deal. So she is

inconsistent in finding against most antioxidants, since these same antioxidants are




Page | 20

found naturally in common foods. Why didn’t she extend her warning to include

antioxidant-rich foods, especially fruit and vegetables. She’d be laughed at!

What was a most sinister and deliberate omission is admitting the wide-scale use by

both medical and radiation oncologists of synthetic antioxidants given by prescription in

order to control the adverse effects of chemotherapy and radiation. Why would her

colleagues do that, if they were indeed dangerous?

I’m not for book burning, but I make an exception for this clumsy and twisted attack on

health freedom and health alternatives to Mega-Pharma and the Cancer Industry

machinations!

_____________________________________________

7. Cancer Orthodoxy Uses “Anecdotes” When It Suits Them!

Translated from "propagandese" to plain English

Did you perhaps see the EXCELLENT lead article in Forbes magazine, March 2nd, 2009?

There was the usual “we are looking for a drug to back this up” spin (otherwise it would

never have gotten published) but really the article is about what I and hundreds of

doctors worldwide have been saying for decades: if you boost the immune system, it’s

your immune system that will save you from cancer, not the supposed treatment.

That’s why chemo and radiation don’t make much sense. These treatments wreck the

immune system- it’s their MAIN side effect.

Hey, guess what made me snicker? They did anecdotal stories! If us guys do that, it’s

tantamount to fraud, they say. We're misleading the public and it's not scientific. But

when orthodox medicine wants to roll something out with a big swing, guess what? It’s

anecdotes all the way!

The featured cases included 56-year old Charles Burrows. He was diagnosed with

inoperable liver cancer. It’s got one of the worst prognoses. He was told to get his

affairs in order because you have 30 days to live, maybe 60 days.' See “Cancer

Confidential” section #5, where I talk about doctors giving these stupid death

sentences. They become a self-fulfilling prophecy and so they kill the patient by

intention. It makes the doctor look good.




Page | 21

The trouble is that they are wrong so often, it doesn’t make sense to keep issuing these

stupid predictions.

They were wrong about Charles Burrows. Within 2 months the tumor started to shrink

and was soon gone. He went back to the VA, where gastro-enterologist Nooman Gilani

was flabbergasted to find no sign of cancer on CAT scan and MRI imaging. Where the

tumor had once been, there was "literally empty space," Gilani says.

Gilani can’t explain. But I can; it’s easy—and that’s not showing off.

The key aspect of Burrows’ account is that he went into an episode of abdominal

bloating, shaking, chills and nausea. This is classic and I have seen it many times in my

career. I not only welcome it, I try to make it happen! It’s called “fever therapy”.We deliberately raise the patient’s temperature because that favors the immune system

over pathogens.

What I think helped save Borrow’s life was that the doctors did NOTHING! If they had

tried to treat him, he would have been killed almost overnight. Then they would have

said “Well, he was so far gone anyway…”

Rip up those textbooks

I repeat my call to rip up the medical textbooks. Oncologists are going in the wrong

direction. Very few today practice medicine with Nature in mind. They see the cancer as

something to destroy, like vermin, instead of seeing it as Nature gone wrong. The way

to really fix cancer, properly and permanently, is to correct the causes and I’m sorry but




Page | 22

chemo deficiency is NOT a cause of cancer! But bad diet and lifestyle are major

contributors and can be changed, with permanent benefit thereafter.

Using another anecdotal case, Forbes reports Ole Nielsen Schou, a Danish

pharmaceutical production manager (now 69 and retired). He looked like he would die

within weeks, a few months maximum. He had contracted malignant melanoma, which

soon spread to his liver, abdomen, lungs, bones and ten spots in his brain. The

abdominal tumor was surgically removed, but doctors at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen

had no treatment for his other tumors. He took a cocktail of 17 vitamins and

supplements, including shark cartilage pills, and vizualized the metastases as rats and

he was chasing them with a club.

Orthodox doctors scoff at the visualization trick but we knowledgeable doctors know

that the most powerful healing tool in the Universe is the human mind. It has no equal.

What can be imagined inside your head can—and will—come to pass in the physicalworld (so be careful of all your thoughts, please).

After just 4 months later Schou went back for a new scan and found that 90% of his

tumors had melted away. Soon they were gone. Plastic surgeon Vennegaard Kalialis,

who detailed his case last year in Melanoma Research, doubts it was the vitamins. "It is

a complete mystery," she says. "Nobody has seen anything like this."

There is no reason under the Sun for this silly Kalialis to say it could not be the

vitamins. It’s just her deep, deep prejudice surfacing. It only looks like science. She will

quote maybe a score of studies that show vitamins don’t stop cancer. But I can showher three score or more where it proves vitamins DO help.

The real point—and this is where the science fled out the window—she has not the

faintest idea what doses and regimen Schou was on and so cannot compare this with

any known study. And of course, if she had, chances are what he was doing was not

exactly what was tested in the failed studies. So any direct comparison would be

meaningless and therefore unscientific.

Isn’t it a joke the way they call us rebels unscientific!

The fact is that cancers do recover. Often! Regressions have most often been reported

in melanoma and in kidney cancer. But the phenomenon is much commoner than ever

suspected. A recent study suggests that as many as 1 in 3 breast tumors may vanish on

their own before being detected by a doctor. I reported all this in “Cancer Confidential”,

in a section entitled “Do Doctors Create The Cancer Problem?”

Yes, they do!




Page | 23

Only Your Immune System Will Save You

One of the interesting facts elicited in the Forbes article (again, it’s all in “Cancer

Confidential”) was that people often dramatically and surprisingly recover from cancer just after a severe infection.

The evidence points to the fact that the infection propels the immune system into high

activity. Once the white cells are in action and showing attitude, then it’s God help the

cancer cells while they are on the rampage!

A really good clue was that Schou's abdominal tumor was swarming with white blood

cells when they removed it. So finally, the oncologists and research scientists might

start to “get it”: people who beat the disease, with our without getting radiation,

chemotherapy or surgery, survived because of their own immune systems and NOTBECAUSE OF THE THERAPY.

Nobody ever survived because of therapy. Rather despite the therapy! But ultimately

and only because the cancer victim’s own immune cells were able to get on top of the

case and vanquish the rogue cancer cells. The laughable idea of the oncologists of

killing EVERY cancer cell down to the last one is too absurd to even contemplate: yet

that’s what they honestly believe they do.

Incredible though it seems, there are still doctors who dispute the role of the immune

system in fighting cancer. But then they are people who would probably jump out of anaircraft at 30,000 feet without a parachute, because they “don’t believe” in gravity!

Jedd D. Wolchok, an oncologist at New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center,

has made the connection, however. A spontaneous remission, he says, is "either divine

intervention or the immune system." While few researchers directly study such cases--

they are far too rare--they provide hints of what the immune system might be able to

do if we could harness it.

If only they would listen to people who have already got the results and have been

doing for years: me, Mike Schachter, Nicholas Gonzalez, Jose Contreras and Patrick Kingsley (there are hundreds of others).

[see in “Cancer Confidential” a Japanese doctor who hasn’t lost a cancer case in 10

years, using brilliant management of a unique set of markers]




Page | 24

Big Pharma Wants A Cut

So if immune therapy works, then of course Big Pharma wants a slice of the pie and will

fight, tooth and nail, anybody else’s immune therapy. GlaxoSmithKline I hear is in the

final stages of testing a vaccine to prevent lung cancer from coming back after surgery.

In an early trial it slashed the probability of cancer recurrence by 27%.

"It is all about educating the patients' natural defenses against cancer," says

GlaxoSmithKline's spokesman Vincent Brichard.

Welcome to the real world of cancer therapy, Brichard! Actually, I think 27% is pretty

pathetic, not what I would call “slashed” – but it’s a start!

Unfortunately, orthodoxy is still obsessed by drugs and most doctors are totally

unaware you can boost the immune system with diet changes, herbs, homeopathy,

energy healing. Even just exercize sends floods of healing white cells into the peripheralblood!

But at least they are beginning to look in the right direction. A drug to boost the

immune system is 1,000% more intelligent than looking for drugs to kill cancer cells.

The efficacy of all drugs judged by the FDA is based on shrinking the tumor (nothing to

do with life increase remember—a drug could shrink the tumor but SHORTEN life

expectancy and yet would be approved by this stupid system). Did you know that about

half a solid tumor is composed of the patient’s own immune cells? So shrinking the

tumor, depending on why it’s happening, could be a disaster, not a triumph!

Now at least boosting the immune system will give doctors the chance to switch over to

survival as the measure of effectiveness.

Consider this: In a 2006 study by the University of Paris Descartes' Wolf H. Fridman

found that the number of special white blood cells inside colon tumors is a stronger

predictor of a relapse than “staging” criteria pathologists traditionally use (such as

whether cancer cells have spread to the lymph nodes, stage 3). Fridman analyzed

tumor samples from 415 people who had been operated on for early-stage colon cancer

over the last two decades. Those with the highest number of these cells in their tumorrarely relapsed; those with few immune cells almost always did.

The search for a patentable drug to boost the immune system goes on. In trials to date,

immune-enhancing drugs have been generally disappointing. But when they do work, it

can be spectacular.




Page | 25

Let’s follow one more anecdote; melanoma again.

Sharon Belvin, age 22, was diagnosed with melanoma in her lung a week before her

wedding. That’s a tough break, anyone would admit. Once it starts to spread malignant

melanoma is rapidly fatal. By the time Sharon turned 24 the few standard treatments

had failed, and she had tumors in both lungs.

But she was put on an experimental drug called ipilimumab (where do they get these

awful names? I know, don’t tell me – they are computer generated). It’s action is to

trigger the immune system.

Within four months her lung tumors started to shrink and by late 2006 they were gone.

Today Sharon remains free of cancer and off treatment. She gave birth to a healthy

daughter. Her case is so unusual that during a recent appointment the radiologist called

her oncologist in disbelief and asked, 'What did you do for this patient? Am I reading

the diagnosis correctly?'"

Of course the drug may get the credit—it’s just an anecdote, after all, nothing proven.

But the real victor was the patient’s immune system. Given the chance, most peoples’

immune system will save them from cancer. But—and it’s a giant BUT—the precipitating

causes must be addressed. Carrying on with the same deadly lifestyle after a severe

warning like cancer is stupid.

Yet that’s what so many people seem to want. Even some people seeking alternative

remedies have the same weak-minded mentality, “Just give me something so I don’thave to bother about eating a better diet or making any healthy changes.

Finally, the Forbes piece mentions New York surgeon William Coley. He learned about

the benefits of fever therapy when he witnessed a patient with sarcoma who recovered

after suffering an acute bacterial infection. In the 1890s Coley started vaccinating other

patients with killed bacteria. He claimed that his toxins spurred the immune system to

destroy tumors in a minority of cases.

What the article doesn’t state is that Coley’s fever toxins were sold by Park Davis and

part of the standard pharmacopeia until as late as 1952. In 1962 the Food and Drug Administration, which as we know writes its own version of science, refused to

acknowledge Coley's Toxin as a proven drug. Thus, in 1962 it became illegal to use

Coley's Toxins for the treatment of cancer in the USA (but not in other civilized

countries, of course).




Page | 26

Genetic factors

Drug treatments that aim to amplify the immune system report similar patterns--

scattered amazing success stories combined with a failure on the broad stage. Last

summer Cassian Yee at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center reported

eradicating tumors in a 52-year-old man with advanced melanoma by plucking out the

rare white cells from his blood that seemed to be active against cancer, painstakingly

growing them in the lab and then injecting billions of them back into him. The man is

free of cancer three years later. Yet on eight other patients the same procedure was

unsuccessful.

Steven Rosenberg at the National Cancer Institute carries out a similar therapy to Yee’s.

He was able to help 72% of melanoma patients when given after chemo and radiation.

Rosenberg, whose work was inspired by a patient whose stomach cancer vanished on

its own, is now expanding the method to colon and breast cancer. But this procedure isfar too complex for most hospitals to do.

What is special about the miracle survivors? Why do a minority of outliers live years

longer than most? Is it something in their blood? Their genes? Are their tumors weaker

than some? Or do they have unusually strong immune systems that just need a slight

nudge?

It comes down to another fact largely ignored by conventional medicine, which is that

everyone is unique. There is no such thing as an average. NOBODY IS AVERAGE, as I

keep saying. So what is the point in studying only the average? We all have countlessminor genetic variations. No two individuals are alike when it comes to DNA.

That’s great when it comes to forensic evidence but a big nuisance and failure factor

when it comes to testing the efficacy of drugs.

It’s why some people do OK on a certain drug, while other patients are badly harmed

and may even die.

In addition, patients' tumors also have mutations that make them particularly sensitive

to one drug or another.

Protective coating

Another problem is that tumors are often “invisible” to the immune system; they

secrete a sticky coat that prevents them getting on the immune radar.




Page | 27

Alternative doctors have known this for decades and we have a sneaky method of

getting round this tumor trick: we use enzymes. Again, this is in “Cancer Confidential”,

but just in brief, we give enzymes which digest away the protective coat around tumor

cells. This leaves them naked and vulnerable. So they get attacked by the immune

system, once it can get at them.

Probably a lot of drugs would perform differently if oncologists would only acknowledge

and use this strategy, instead of fighting it.

But it remains a very complex picture. There are many chemical processes going on,

both in healthy cells and tumor cells, that can be hi-jacked and altered, to favor either

the normal immune cells or the tumor cells. That’s why tumors are sometimes

contained and sometimes they escape immune control and rampage through the body.

There is a lot to learn. All I know for sure is that we need to use natural mechanisms to

create cures, not wade in with all the artillery blazing, in the vain, stupid hope that we

can kill every last cancer soldier. We need more understanding of the “enemy”, not

more guns.

Politicians can learn from this too. There are no victors in war. Vietnam was a classic

case of the fact that you cannot “wipe out the enemy”, no matter how much fire power

you bring to bear. We can see the same mistakes being made all over again, 40 years

later, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In fact oncologists and politicians are a bit alike: pig-headed, arrogant, self-righteous,

yet largely mistaken!

_____________________________________________

8. Furore Over Mammograms Protocol

You will recall the violent storm which erupted when a group of independent

researchers suggested (indeed demonstrated ) that the current overuse of mammograms was not a good idea and did not benefit women at all; just the

oncologists (more business for them!)

The Annals of Internal Medicine published new mammography guidelines in November

2010 from the United States Preventive Services Task Force and recommended "most

women start routine scans at age 50 rather than 40 and reduce the frequency to every




Page | 28

two years, from once a year." Some responsible doctors took the new guidelines to

heart and stopped suggesting early and annual screening.

Others denounced the recommendations as flawed and refused to accept them.

Obviously, this was the group of doctors making money from worthless mammograms.

The ugly outburst from the vested interests of the profession made it very clear that

patient care was the last thing on their minds; just dollars.

What wasn’t made very clear in the debate, if you can call such an outcry a debate, was

that mammograms are not only merely worthless but actually dangerous.

Ironically, the majority of patients surveyed said they would not be giving up routine

mammograms in one's 40s ... and were not likely to switch to an every-other-year

routine. Seems they really fell for the phoney statistics and they probably don’t realize

that…

Mammograms Are Dangerous

Contrary to popular belief and assurances by the U. S. media and the cancer

establishment- the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS)-

mammography is not a technique for early diagnosis. In fact, a breast cancer has

usually been present for about eight years before it can finally be detected.

Furthermore, screening should be recognized as damage control, rather than

misleadingly as "secondary prevention." [International Journal of Health Services,

31(3):605-615, 2001].

Mammography is far from safe, as well as being far less helpful than is claimed. In fact

mammography poses a wide range of risks of which women worldwide are deliberately

kept ignorant.

Radiation Risks

Radiation from routine mammography poses a significant cumulative risks of actually

causing breast cancer. Contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposurefrom mammography is trivial and about the same as that from a chest X-ray or a week

in the mountains (about 0.001 rad), the routine practice of taking four films for each

breast results in some 1,000-fold more exposure than is claimed, or about 1 rad per

breast [Gofman, J. W. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major Proven




Page | 29

Preventable Cause of this Disease. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco,

1995].

That means women are exposed to an additional lifetime extra 10 rads (PER BREAST

remember). We know each rad increases the cancer risk by 1% so mammograms

increase a woman’s risk of cancer by 10%.

This is supposed to reduce breast cancer, not increase it! [Epstein, S. S., Steinman, D.,

and LeVert, S. The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Ed. 2. Macmillan, New York,

1998].

Furthermore, breast cancer risks from mammography are up to fourfold higher for the

small 1 – 2% of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene

and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation (5); by some estimates

this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States

(Bridges, B. A., and Arlett, C. F. Risk of breast cancer in ataxia-telangiectasia. N. Engl.

J. Med. 326( 20): 1357, 1992.

Cancer Risks from Breast Compression

As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle cancerous breasts with care- for

fear of accidentally disseminating cells and spreading cancer. Heck, I was taught that in

med school in the 1960s! Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful

compression of the breast, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead todistant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or

around small, as yet undetected breast cancers (8).

Unreliability Of Mammography

Couple the dangers of mammography with the fact they are very unreliable indeed and

it is clear they cannot justify the risks involved.

Missed cancers are particularly common in premenopausal women owing to the denseand highly glandular structure of their breasts.

About one-third of all cancers, even more so of premenopausal cancers, which are

aggressive, even to the extent of doubling in size in one month, and more likely to

metastasize- are diagnosed in the interval between successive annual mammograms.

These are called “interval cancers” and kill a lot of women, despite negative




Page | 30

mammography, possibly because a woman can thus be lulled into a false sense of

security and fail to seek timely medical advice.

Then there are all the false positives (a LOT of false positives), where the woman is

scared half to death for no reason, other than just that mammograms are not reliable.

Mistakenly diagnosed cancers are particularly common in premenopausal women, and

also in postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy, resulting in needless

anxiety, more mammograms, and unnecessary biopsies.

It’s worse: for women with multiple high-risk factors, including a strong family history,

prolonged use of the contraceptive pill, early menarche, and nulliparity- just those

groups that are most strongly urged to have annual mammograms- the cumulative risk

of false positives increases to "as high as 100 percent" over a decade's screening

[Christiansen, C. L., et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms.

J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92( 20): 1657- 1666, 2000].

Sometimes cancers are diagnosed, like the dramatic supposed increase in the diagnosis

of ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS), a pre-invasive cancer, with a current estimated

incidence of about 40,000 annually. 80 percent of all DCIS cases never become invasive

and mortality from DCIS is the same (about 1%), whether treated early or left and

watched, to see if it becomes invasive [Napoli, M. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment:

The hidden pitfalls of cancer screening. Am. J. Nurs ., 2001, in press].

1% mortality isn’t much. Yet I see numerous media references to DCIS, portrayed as a

terrible killer, in reports clearly intended to frighten women.

The United States Versus Other Nations

No nation other than the United States routinely screens premenopausal women by

mammography. That fact alone is salutary. In January 1997 National Institutes of

Health Consensus Conference recommended against premenopausal breast screening.

The NCI accepted this; the ACS did not.

Guess what happened? After pressure from Congress and the ACS, the NCI reversed its

decision some three months later in favor of premenopausal screening. Science didn’t

really matter after all!




Page | 31

The U. S. overkill extends to the standard practice of taking two or more mammograms

per breast annually in postmenopausal women. This contrasts with the more restrained

European practice of a single view every two to three years.

So What Is The Alternative? Self Examination Works

90% of all tumors are discovered by the woman herself, NOT technological screening.

They didn’t tell you that, huh? Well, they wouldn’t would they? But that’s official, from

the American Cancer Society, who are notorious pushers of mammography. [Ross, W.

S. Crusade: The Official History of the American Cancer Society, p. 96. Arbor House,

New York, 1987.]

What’s more, "training increases reported breast self-examination frequency,

confidence, and the number of small tumors found" [Hall, D. C., et al. Improveddetection of human breast lesions following experimental training. Cancer 46( 2): 408-

414, 1980.]

A pooled analysis of several 1993 studies showed that women who regularly performed

breast self-examination (BSE) detected their cancers much earlier and with fewer

positives nodes and smaller tumors than women failing to examine themselves [Smigel,

K. Perception of risk heightens stress of breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85( 7): 525-

526, 1993].

BSE also enhanced earlier detection of missed or interval cancers, especially in pre-menopausal women (Baines, C. J. Efficacy and opinions about breast self-examination.

In Advanced Therapy of Breast Disease, edited by S. E. Singletary and G. L. Robb, pp.

9- 14. B. C. Decker, Hamilton, Ont., 2000].

However, it is agreed that the effectiveness of BSE critically depends on careful training

by skilled professionals, repeated yearly [Leight, S. B., et al. The effect of structured

training on breast self-examination search behaviors as measured using biomedical

instrumentation. Nurs. Res. 49( 5): 283- 289, 2000].

The reliability of CBE was confirmed in a major Canadian National Breast CancerScreening Study [Miller, A. B., et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-

year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50- 59 years. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92

(18): 1490- 1499, 2000].




Page | 32

This study was a unique individually randomized controlled trial on some 40,000

women, aged 50 to 59 on entry, followed for 13 years, with active follow-up of cancer

patients for an additional three years.

Half the women performed monthly BSE and had annual mammograms, while the other

half practiced BSE and had annual CBEs but no mammograms.

The results of this study were clear: "In women age 50- 59 years, the addition of

annual mammography screening to physical examination has no impact on breast

cancer mortality." In other words, the mammographic detection of nonpalpable cancers

failed to improve survival rates.

Yet the NCI and ACS no longer inform women of the benefist of BSE and have removed

written reference to it in their handouts (such as the ACS shower-hanger cards).

Women are being farmed for profit.

Worse than that, according to another keynote paper: "the majority of the small

cancers detected by mammography represent pseudo-disease or overdiagnosis" [Miller,

A. B., Baines, C. J., and Wall, C. Correspondence. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93( 5): 396,

2001].

They call it “overdiagnosis”; I call it fraud and an abuse of women.

Shocking, I Say

Be aware, as Dr. Sam Epstein points out, that the ACS has close connections to the

mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its

every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of

mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman

Kodak, and Piker.

ACS promotion continues to falsify its claims and trick women into believe that

mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. A leading Massachusetts

newspaper featured a photograph of two women in their twenties in an ACS

advertisement that promised early detection results in a cure "nearly 100 percent of the

time." An ACS communications director, questioned by journalist Kate Dempsey,

admitted in an article published by the Massachusetts Women's Community's journal

Cancer, "The ad isn't based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say

what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point. . . . Mammography

today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business" [Epstein, S. S. American Cancer




Page | 33

Society: The world's wealthiest "non-profit" institution. Int. J. Health Serv. 29( 3): 565-

578, 1999].

For more information, contact:

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., ChairmanCancer Prevention Coalition

2121 West Taylor Street, M/C 922

Chicago, IL 60612-7260

[email protected]

So Screening A Waste Of Time (But It Goes On, Despite The Facts)

The American Cancer Society says it is not currently rethinking its stance on cancerscreening, as was widely reported. Nor do they intend to restate their guidelines to

emphasize the inadequacies of screening. It remains a sales hype document for a

totally discredited procedure which Prof. Sam Epstein MD has condemned as “a crime

against humanity”.

The cancer society argues it has never maintained that mammography screening for

breast cancer is perfect. The statement, from the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis

Brawley, said that the organization "stands by its screening guidelines" and that

"women are encouraged to continue getting mammograms." He omitted to mention

that it actually kills women, through radiation and through over-zealous (ie. fraudulent)

diagnosis. Women are subject to needless biopsies and scares. Often surgery results,

with its accompanying risks because treatment, of course, is not about the patient but

about raising funds.

ACS has tried to take credit for the decline in breast cancer rates and hinted “it's

unclear how much of this is because of more screening”. The answer is none

whatsoever. Everyone now knows, though ACS will die rather than admit it, that the

sudden decline is due to the fact that women in large numbers have refused hormone

therapy in recent years. Before that, cancer rates had RISEN sharply because of mammogram screening and unnecessary intervention.

[Oct. 21, 2009, news release, American Cancer Society]

_____________________________________________




Page | 34

9. Farrah, The Inside Scoop On Why She Died

A wasted life. Nobody should die of this disease. It’s a catalogue of medical blundering.

I know the inside scoop on this. Farrah didn’t believe in conventional cancer therapy here in the

US (that should have saved her life in fact). So she went to Germany. Germans have some of

the best cancer treatments around.

But unfortunately, she fell in with a dodo bunch who tried stem cell therapy. Sounds glamorous

but in fact killed her. Stem cell is NOT a successful therapy for cancer. In fact it’s dangerous

and sold only by crooks, dressed as doctors. We are just not ready for it yet.

The REAL treatment for cancer is clean up your diet, clean up your emotions and clean up your

lifestyle. MILLIONS have recovered using these simple steps.

My eReport “Cancer Confidential” is the definitive guide to alternative cancer treatments

(including German clinics) and what she should have done. She’d not just be alive but fit and

well again - better than she’s been in over 40 years in fact.

Cancer is not a death knell- but it is a wake up call. It’s telling you your health is in ruins and

you must change something. Change a lot. But don’t just rely on chemo, radiotherapy or even

stem cells!

_____________________________________________




Page | 35

10. Cancer And Genes Means Very Little, Really

Doctors and “scientists” have got themselves so far off center they start to think genes are

everything. Genes actually count for very little. It’s the ENVIRONMENT which tells genes

whether to switch on and off, or not, as the case may be.

A cancer gene is HARMLESS unless it switches on!

A recent study shows that yet again environmental factors will trigger cancer. This time it’s

childhood abuse. Abuse, of course, is NOT in the genes. [July 15 2009 issue of the journal

Cancer.]

University of Toronto researchers concluded that childhood physical abuse is associated with a

49% increased risk of cancer in adulthood and is even more important than socioeconomic

status and adult behaviors such as smoking, alcohol consumption and lack of physical activity.

Note that I have always put immense emphasis on the emotional make up of a cancer sufferer.

It’s as big, or BIGGER, than issues of diet and nutrition. Meaning, in my experience, you could

eat badly and survive, if you clean out your emotional detritus.

Almost every patient I had who went to the core of their issues and really confronted and

cleaned them up survived, even while eating poorly.

I remember one outstanding 40-year old case who was a victim of child abuse and she finally

uncovered the horrifying story she’d been suppressing all her life (grandfather, satanism,

bondage, ritual abuse in the forest by a group of adults, and the usual threats to keep her

silent). She had to puke it all up and get rid of it.

But then her brain tumor vanished, all her tumor markers went back to zero and she recovered

fully. When I last talked with her I noticed she ate plenty of junk food. I asked her why she

didn’t take care of herself more and use supplements etc. She said she was cured—and she was

right!

A salutary case for anyone into dogma.

___________________________________________




Page | 36

11. Corruption In Cancer Research

Conflict of interest blocks out real scientific integrity in cancer research

A study published June 15th 2009 in the journal Cancer has highlighted what is

essentially corruption in the science of cancer research. It’s called “conflict of interest”:

but you and I would call it corruption, bribery or malicious threats. Not nice words for a

not nice phenomenon, which I’ve known about for years.

Well, at least the industry is beginning to talk about it.

What it amounts to is that cancer researchers are likely to “find” (or invent) favorable

outcomes for research which is paid for by the major drug cartels. Many doctors

engaged in research are on stipends from the very company which produces theproduct they are supposedly “testing”.

Some take secret bribes, of course, but then so do Congressmen!

Some investigators at major hospitals and medical schools have their salary paid,

indirectly, via drug company funding to their hospital or laboratory post. Who has the

guts to rock the boat when it pays the mortgage? Ridiculous idea, you say; responsible

drug companies would never threaten the jobs of honest researchers. Well, if you are

naïve enough to think that, wise up. Not only do drug companies threaten to get

uncooperative (ie. honest and objective) scientists removed from their post—theyactually do it.

This new up-to-date study puts some figures to the extent to which drug cartels bias

what they laughingly call “research”. As I am fond of saying, it’s not research, but

marketing strategies disguised as research.

The analysis, to be published in the June 15 issue of Cancer and headed by the

University of Michigan, looked at more than 1,500 supposedly-scientific cancer studies

published in eight authoritative journals, including Cancer, the New England Journal of

Medicine and the Lancet. Here’s what they found:

Randomized clinical trials that assessed patient survival were more likely to link a

survival advantage to the medical treatment being studied when a conflict of interest

was present.




Page | 37

Apparent conflicts of interest (such as industry funding, consulting fees to authors and

co-authorship by industry employees) found simply by reviewing the authorship credits

were noted in 29% of studies, while 17% actually declared industry funding.

Industry-funded studies focused on treatment in 62% of cases, whereas only 36% of

studies done without industry funding focused on treatment.

While almost half (47%) of studies done without industry funding looked at

epidemiology, prevention, risk factors, screening or diagnostic methods, only one fifth

of industry-funded studies looked at these areas.

Any guesses why the drug industry would slew research away from disease prevention?

I’ll bet you know.

_____________________________________________

12. I Smell Cancer Here

Those of you who subscribed to my former “Wholesome Living Letter” might remember an

article I did called “Dr. Fido Will See You Now”.

It told of the fact that dogs were extraordinarily accurate in sniffing out cutaneous cancer cells.

A number of dogs had literally saved their owner’s life by spotting very early cancers.

Now researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of Massachusetts at

Amherst say they have developed highly sensitive sensors that pick up subtle differences on the

surface of a cell that indicate if it is healthy or cancerous, even whether the cancer is metastatic

or not.

The team's report, published online in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, said the sensors have successfully distinguished between healthy and

cancerous human and animal cells, even from the same individual.

The sensors use the polymer PPE, or para-phenyleneethynylene, and three gold nanoparticlesthat tend to bond with the surface of chemically abnormal cells. When an abnormal cell surface

grabs on to the gold nanoparticles, the PPE breaks off and glows. The glowing PPE pattern

helps scientists identify the cell type, as a cancer cell has slightly different proportions of

biomarkers on its surface than a healthy cell.




Page | 38

The new method uses an array of sensors to recognize not only known cancer types, but it

signals that abnormal cells are present. That is, the chemical nose can simply tell us something

isn't right, without being sure what.

The researchers next hope to test the chemical nose on real animal tissue as opposed to

cultured tissue and refine their ability to decipher the information the detection system givesthem.

_____________________________________________

13. Blood Group Matters

Like size matters, we know genes matter. Just not as much as they say. Genetic traitsalso extends to blood group type. Even when I was at med school it was known that

group A (mine) was at higher risk for stomach cancer. Now we have learned that

people with blood types A, B, or AB are at higher risk of pancreatic cancer than those

with type O, according to a new study.

This came from a study is published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The researchers examined data from 107,503 people who participated in either the

Nurses’ Health Study or the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. The study started in

1996, and after an average follow-up period of nearly nine years, 316 study participantsdeveloped pancreatic cancer.

So that’s a MAJOR study, no question.

The researchers found that the age-adjusted incidence rate of pancreatic cancer for

people with blood type O was significantly less than for individuals with A, AB, or B

blood types.

Compared to participants with type O blood, those with type A blood were 32% more

likely to develop pancreatic cancer. Those with type AB blood were 51% more likely,

and those with type B were 72% more likely. These findings took into account known

risk factors for pancreatic cancer such as age, obesity, smoking status, and family

history of pancreatic cancer in a first-degree relative.

Pretty significant.




Page | 39

14. Prostate Symptoms. Be Aware, Not Beware.

Prostate symptoms can herald prostate cancer and should not be ignored. The problem

is that most men will develop some degree of “prostatism”, as it’s called, after the age

of 50. And it gets steadily more pronounced as the years go by. By 60 about half of all

men will be affected and by the age of 80 nine out of every ten men will be

experiencing some sort of prostate symptoms.

The common symptoms are:

• Difficulty in starting to urinate and a need to strain in order to start urinating.

• A weak flow of urine.

• A tendency for the flow of urine to stop and start.

• A feeling that you have not emptied your bladder even after you’ve just been to

the bathroom.

• A feeling that you need to visit the bathroom urgently and difficulty in “holding

on”.

• The need for more frequent visits to the bathroom and, in particular, a need to

get up during the night.

• A tendency to continue to dribble urine after you have finished in the bathroom.

How to tell if it’s cancer or not?

The old-fashioned way was to have a PSH test, “prostate specific antigen”. If it’s up,

you might have cancer of the prostate. But it might be normal and you have cancer and

it might be raised and you NOT have cancer. So, not a very good test really.

Is there a better one? Some think so.

According to a study published in the February 1 2008 issue of Cancer Research, a

journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, an experimental biomarker

test developed by researchers at the University of Michigan more accurately detects

prostate cancer than any other screening method currently in use, according.

It’s a simple urine test that screens for the presence of four different RNA molecules

and accurately identified 80% of patients in a study who were later found to haveprostate cancer. In the reverse, it was 61% effective in ruling out the disease in other

study participants.

This is far more accurate than the PSA blood test currently in use worldwide. Even the

newer PCA3 test, which screens for a molecule specific to prostate cancer and which is

now in use both in the U.S. and Europe is less precise, they say.




Page | 40

This may possibly be the first test that allows doctors to make a firm diagnosis and

decide treatment WITHOUT being forced to do a preliminary biopsy.

The Michigan researchers developed the test based on their recent finding that pieces

of chromosomes that trade places with each other, causing two genes to stick together,

are common in prostate cancer. In 2005 they identified a prostate-specific gene called

TMPRSS2 which fuses with either ERG or ETV1, two genes known to be involved in

several types of cancer. In 2007, they identified another five genes that fuse on to ERG

or ETV1 to cause prostate cancer.

In the current study, researchers built upon the PCA3 test by screening for six

additional biomarkers. Researchers collected urine samples from 234 men with rising

PSA levels before they underwent prostate biopsy at a University of Michigan urology

clinic. Among this group, biopsy results confirmed a diagnosis of prostate cancer in 138

patients; 96 patients were cancer-free.

When tested as individual biomarkers, each outperformed PSA, which had identified all

of the men in the study as potentially positive for prostate cancer. "PSA was not

predictive at all," said lead author Arul Chinnaiyan, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Michigan

Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan. "You might as well

have flipped a coin."

_____________________________________________

15. Testicular Cancer And Testosterone

The (entirely erroneous) party line for doctors is that testosterone is bad if you have

testicular cancer. They do not address the fact that a low testosterone level is a risk

factor for testicular cancer!

This ridiculous anti-testosterone stance is all based on shabby science, from (surprise!)

the drug companies. In the 1930s, they introduced a perverted version of testosterone,

patented for profit, called methyl testosterone. It was unnatural and caused problems,

including liver damage and the tendency to cause or worsen testicular cancer.

So throwing the baby out with the bathwater, doctors condemned all testosterone. No

suggestion that maybe Nature’s version as OK, that she knew what she was doing!




Page | 41

And that’s the way it has stayed all these decades. Myth and junk science, with no logic

or reason. Patients with testicular cancer are recommended to have testosterone

blocking drugs. That this results in men with low energy, blood pressure problems,

depression, less muscle strength and no libido was not considered a problem. The fact

that this route did nothing whatever to improve the survival rates was unremarked byanybody.

The new dogma had arrived and stuck.

Fortunately, there are doctors other than me around to question this mass stupidity.

Now Dr. Abraham Morgentaler of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center has come out

with a book “Testosterone For Life”, revisiting this old myth.

Morgentaler argues that although depriving tumors of testosterone does make them

shrink, other evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be safe to give testosterone

to men who have been successfully treated for prostate cancer and who appear to be

cancer free.

One important aspect of Morgentaler’s theory is the observation that prostate cancer is

often found in men with low testosterone levels, not high ones, underscoring what I

said above, that taking it may not be an added risk but actually a safety factor.

It’s not surprising that Morgentaler -- who has received honorariums and research

funding from companies selling testosterone-related products -- has been bitterly

attacked. Dogma is dogma and it won’t go away any time soon, because dogma isn’t

based on fact but on opinion only.

“To say that testosterone replacement therapy is safe because we have no evidence it’s

harmful is making an assertion on faith, not facts,” said Dr. Ian Thompson, chairman of

the department of urology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San

Antonio, echoing the view of other doctors who disagree with Morgentaler. Well, theirs

is just opinion too, of course.

In 2006, Morgentaler co-wrote a study on 345 men with low testosterone. The study --

published in the journal Urology and not industry funded -- showed prostate cancer risk

was higher in men with the lowest testosterone.

And in February 2009, an analysis of data from 18 studies around the world involving

nearly 4,000 men with prostate cancer, and more than 6,000 without, showed no

correlation between high testosterone levels and cancer risk. The study was published

in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.




Page | 42

If you are faced with this confusion, do not let ignorant doctors, with only their bluster

and opinion on their side, to sell you on the idea of losing your virility because it is

“necessary”. It isn’t.

An estimated 2 million to 6 million American men have low testosterone, and the

benefits of replacement therapy can be huge: revival of sagging libido, better mood,

more energy, more muscle, better bone density, more red blood cells. You are entitled

to all of that (and more), even if you have been fighting testicular cancer!

The fact is studies suggest that prostate cancer is lurking in as many as 25% or more of

men 50 and older. Only when a man has a “clean” biopsy -- an invasive procedure in

which snippets of the prostate are surgically removed and tested -- can a doctor

confidently say the man doesn’t have cancer.

As an extra measure of safety, Morgentaler says, he biopsies men older than 50 before

he prescribes testosterone for them. But most doctors don’t, says Dr. Marc Garnick, a

cancer specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and editor in chief of Harvard

Medical School’s publication “Perspectives on Prostate Disease.”

Even with apparently healthy men, “Nobody has proven that it is completely safe” to

give testosterone,” says Dr. Philip Kantoff, head of the Prostate Cancer Program at the

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Yes but the chemo junk he administers is proven NOT to be safe. So who do you

believe?

_____________________________________________

16. The Red Meat Question

March 2009 saw yet another nail in the coffin of red meat. Or did it?

This question of eliminating red meat in cancer-containment programs is a vexed one.

99% of the science I have seen has been shaky. The main difficulty in interpreting

findings is that researchers all seem Hell-bent on including manufactured and junk

meats into the investigation.




Page | 43

What possible similarity can there be between red, raw meat, which Nature intended for

us, and the denatured, plasticized, gooy, chemical-infested yuck that the food industry

likes to throw out under the banner of “meat”.

Even regular meat, unaltered after butchering, is still totally different from natural red

meat. Modern agribusiness methods results in a product that is anything up to 30% fat

and loaded with chemical contaminants, including hormones. It’s deadly for health in all

manner of ways.

But that’s not real meat either. Natural meat from hoofed animals is only 5 – 7% fat

and contains no chemicals.

So adding lousy offal and denatured, fat-ridden meats to an investigation into “red

meat” is bound to skew the figures. The resulting conclusion—that meat is a bad

thing—is hardly a tenable conclusion when you take it apart in this way.

So I don’t take this new study too seriously and go on recommending red and organ

meats over manufactured foods and cereal-based products.

Notwithstanding, it was a very LARGE study, published in the Archives of Internal

Medicine, involving 322,263 men and 223,390 women, aged 50 to 71, recruited from

eight American states and cities between 1995 and 2005. Volunteers filled out

questionnaires that asked about their usual consumption of food and drinks, including a

full range of meats.

The researchers concluded that men and women who eat about four ounces of redmeat per day — the equivalent of a small steak or quarter-pound of meat — had a

higher risk for overall death, and dying from heart disease or cancer than those who ate

less than one ounce of red meat daily.

But the lead author Rashma Sinha, of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, showed her

ignorance by pronouncing: “Less than an ounce would be around threes slices of ham”.

Three slices of ham is virtually no real meat at all, but fat, nitrates, polyphosphates, etc.

All dyed pink and with added flavors, to make it (barely) edible.

The sheer size of the study has impressed people, however, and has led the CanadianCancer Society to say it will be lowering its recommend limiting red meat to 500 grams,

or 18 ounces per week, to reduce the risk of cancer.

But look at the haphazard and arbitrary definition of “red meat”: it included bacon,

beef, cold cuts, ham, hamburger, hot dogs, liver, pork, sausage, steak and meats in

foods such as pizza, chili lasagna and stew. That’s ridiculous.




Page | 44

White meat included chicken, turkey and fish, as well as poultry cold cuts, canned tuna

and low-fat sausages and hot dogs made from poultry.

Processed meat included bacon, red meat sausage, cold cuts, ham and regular hot

dogs. This too was classed as “meat”. I don’t think so.

Overall, “we found that the consumption of red and processed meat was associated

with a modest increase in total mortality, cancer mortality and cardiovascular mortality

in both men and women,” Sinha says.

So what’s all the fuss. A “modest” increase in the death rate.

Well, take out the manufactured junk and the picture would change to an

unmeasurable effect from plain meat.

Not surprisingly, those with the highest white meat intake had a slightly lower risk for

death from any cause, and death from cancer.

Sinha cautioned the risk has to be put into perspective. Smoking, for example, remains

the No. 1 preventable cause of cancer.

“This is not a definitive study on whether or not Americans should eat red meat,” says

Sinha, senior investigator in the Nutritional Epidemiology Branch of the Division of

Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics.

She’s right in that much.

So what should you do?

Eat meat when you want. Make sure it’s organic, grass-fed and free-range. Cut off the

fat, always. Fat stores many toxins.

Get plenty of fish and poultry to balance the red meat.

Do not resort to gluttony. 6- 8 ozs is the portion size you want (10 ozs maximum). 2 lb

T-bone steaks and the like are gluttonous and ridiculous. Far from being a man’s plate

size, it’s a pig’s.

_____________________________________________




Page | 45

17. Spirulina Boosts Immunity

Again and again, I find myself emphasizing that it is the immune system which cures

cancer, not chem. Or radiation therapy. Even if conventional oncology methods manage

to damage the cancer and hold it back for a time, it’s still the immune system that

cleans up the mess. The idea that chemo knocks out the last living cancer cell is a total

absurdity.

Now researchers have found that extracts of a local lake-weed, spirulina, have shown

huge potentials in treating cancers (and, incidentally, AIDS), by boosting the immune

system.

A study reported in Nutrition and Cancer that was conducted among tobacco chewers in

India reported a complete regression of pre-cancerous mouth lesions in 45 per cent of

subjects who were given extracts of spirulina for 12 months. This was the first human

study using spirulina as a cancer therapy.

Spirulina is a food! Spirulina has 60 per cent of all the digestible vegetable protein. Most

notably, spirulina is 65 to 71 per cent complete protein, with all essential amino acids

(albeit with lesser amounts of certain amino acids). In comparison, beef is only 22 per

cent protein.

The United Nations World Health Organisation (WHO) in Geneva has confirmed:

“Spirulina represents an interesting food for multiple reasons, and it is able to be

administered to children without any risk. We at WHO consider it a very suitable food.”

According to a scientific review from Latin America, spirulina has a vast array of

beneficial properties. It has been shown to be effective in the treatment of allergies,

anemia, cancer, high cholesterol, elevated blood sugar, viral infections, inflammatory

conditions, liver damage, immuno -deficiency, cardiovascular diseases, and other

conditions.

More than 100 published scientific references have indicated the great health benefits

of spirulina, including anticancer and antiviral properties. The secret is that spirulina has

been shown to be a powerful tonic for the immune system. It contains large amounts of

clinically active carotenoid antioxidants, chlorophyll, fatty-acids—gamma-linolenic acid

(GLA), alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), linoleic acid (LA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA),

docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and arachidonic acid (AA); plus other nutrients, such as

B12, iron and trace minerals.




Page | 46

Moreover, spirulina is overloaded with unique phyto-nutrients like phycocyanin,

polysaccharides and sulfurlipids that not only enhance the immune system, but also

reduces the risks of infection, cancer and auto immune diseases.

The B12 content of spirulina could be critical. This rare and not-readily available vitamin

is often deficient. It may not be biologically available in spirulina. But tests done on

Australian grown spirulina by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory (AGAL)

show Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) levels of 659.1 ug / per100g. A one gram tablet could

provide more than three times the recommended daily intake of B12.

Get yourself some. Spirulina is widely available as both an animal and a human dietary

supplement in powder, tablet and flake form.

[Note: Until recently, much spirulina was certified organic. In 2002, the United States

Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Standards Board voted to disallow the use

of Chilean nitrate. They granted a three-year window to spirulina producers, which

expired in 2006. As a result, leading spirulina manufacturers have stopped labelling

their spirulina as organic, citing safety concerns of nitrate alternatives. Pity they didn’t

get rid of the nitrate instead!]

_____________________________________________

18. Frankincense. The Greatest Gift Ever?

Famous as one of Christ’s first gifts, frankincense may surprise you with possible anti-

cancer benefits.

It originates from Africa, India, and the Middle East, and has been important both

socially and economically as an ingredient in incense and perfumes for thousands of

years. Frankincense was considered to be a more precious commodity than gold in the

time of Christ. In the Middle East, it has been used for religious purposes for centuries

and is known as the holy anointing oil. Frankincense receives a mention in the Ebers

Papyrus, an ancient Egyptian record of the use of plants for medicinal and aromatic

purposes.

Frankincense oil is prepared from aromatic hardened gum resins obtained by tapping

Boswellia carterii trees. It contains boswellic acids (various), which have been shown to

cause apoptosis of cancer cells, particularly brain tumors and cells affected by leukemia

or colon cancer [Liu, Jian-Jun; Nilsson, A., Oredsson, S., Badmaev, V., Zhao, W., Duan,




Page | 47

R. (December 2002). "Boswellic acids trigger apoptosis via a pathway dependent on

caspase-8 activation but independent on Fas/Fas ligand interaction in colon cancer HT-

29 cells" (abstract page). Carcinogenesis (Oxford University Press) 23 (12): 2087–2093.

Boswellia carterii

The goal of a study published in March 2009 was to evaluate frankincense oil for its

anti-tumor activity and signaling pathways in bladder cancer cells.

The researchers tested Frankincense against mutant human bladder cells (J32) and

compared its effects to normal but immortalized bladder cells.

Within a range of concentration, frankincense oil suppressed cell viability in bladder

transitional carcinoma J82 cells but not in normal healthy cells. Comprehensive gene

expression analysis confirmed that frankincense oil activates genes that are responsible

for cell cycle arrest, cell growth suppression, and apoptosis in J82 cells.

However, frankincense oil-induced cell death in J82 cells did not result in DNA

fragmentation, a hallmark of apoptosis.

The conclusion was that Frankincense oil appears to distinguish cancerous from normal

bladder cells and suppress cancer cell viability. Microarray and bioinformatics analysisproposed multiple pathways that can be activated by frankincense oil to induce bladder

cancer cell death.

Frankincense oil might represent an alternative intravesical agent for bladder cancer

treatment.




Page | 48

You can read about this study here at the BioMedCentral site:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/9/6/abstract

Since Frankincense is so delightful and it can calm and de-stress the mind, I’m tempted

to recommend it specifically as a soothing agent for all cancer cases. It can do no harm.

Lowering stress will do immense good and allow the oppressed immune system to catch

it’s breath.

And watch Out For Myrrh!

Myrrh is a yellow gum, which has for centuries been used as a herbal painkiller and for

treating stomach complaints and diarrhea (Lord knows why the Wise Kings thought

Christ needed a bunch!) The bitter-tasting, fragrant resin has also been used for

thousands of years as an ointment, perfume, incense and embalming fluid, it can evenward off bad breath.

Now, American scientists are reported to have discovered a new anticancer compound

in the resin of the plant Commiphora myrrha, which could make it a powerful weapon

against prostate and breast cancers.

Chi-Tang Ho of the Department of Food Science, Rutgers University is working with

chemists there and colleagues at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

and Osaka City University, Japan. The researchers have discovered a property of an

extract from myrrh that is a potent anticancer compound.

The researchers have shown that a sesquiterpenoid from myrrh kills breast tumour cells

in the laboratory, even those that resist current anticancer drugs. Obviously, it will need

animal and human trials before it amounts to a therapy. But I thought I’d slip in that

interesting Biblical note!)

_____________________________________________




Page | 49

19. Wine Is Good Against Some Cancers

We know that wine helps with heart disease. But a little wine may be a very good thing

for cancer too.

Researchers at the Yale School of Public Health studied more than 500 women withnon-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system.

At the time of their diagnosis, the women were asked a battery of questions regarding

alcohol: whether they drank, what they drank, how much they drank, and for how long

they had been drinking. Then they were followed for eight to 12 years.

Among the findings, it was noted that:

• About three-fourths of women who drank at least 12 glasses of wine over their

lifetime were alive five years after diagnosis, compared with two-thirds of thosewho never drank wine.

• Thirty-five percent of never-drinkers relapsed within five years vs. 30% of wine

drinkers.

• The longer a woman drank, the lower the chance she would suffer a relapse or

die within five years of diagnosis, Han says.

• Patients who had been drinking wine for at least 25 years prior to diagnosis were

26% less likely to relapse or develop a secondary cancer and 33% less likely to

die over the five-year period, compared with non-wine drinkers.

The protective effects of wine were strongest among women with diffuse large B-celllymphoma, the most common type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Women with this type

of cancer who drank more than six glasses of wine a day were about 60% less likely to

relapse or die within five years, compared with non-wine drinkers.

Note that 6 glasses of wine a day (for a woman especially) is considered heavy

drinking.

Beer and liquor consumption did not appear to affect lymphoma risk.

And this from the US’s National Cancer Institute site:

Red wine is a rich source of biologically active phytochemicals, chemicals found in

plants. Particular compounds called polyphenols found in red wine—such as catechins

and resveratrol—are thought to have antioxidant or anticancer properties.




Page | 51

Research studies published in the International Journal of Cancer show that

drinking a glass of red wine a day may cut a man's risk of prostate cancer in half

and that the protective effect appears to be strongest against the most

aggressive forms of the disease. It was also seen that men who consumed four

or more 4-ounce glasses of red wine per week have a 60 percent lower incidenceof the more aggressive types of prostate cancer.

However, studies of the association between red wine consumption and cancer

in humans are in their initial stages. Although consumption of large amounts of

alcoholic beverages may increase the risk of some cancers, there is growing

evidence that the health benefits of red wine are related to its nonalcoholic

components.

[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/redwine; recovered:

2/16/10: 11.00 am PST)

A Note About Resveratrol

Resveratrol is like several anti-cancer drugs in one. Resveratrol works in so many ways

to block cancer, researchers can’t find a cancer-promotion pathway it doesn’t inhibit. It

is virtually non-toxic since, after oral ingestion, it is quickly metabolized by the liver,

attached to a detoxification molecule called glucuronate, which renders it harmless,

though biologically inactive, at least for a time.

At the site of tumors cells there is an unzipping enzyme (glucuronidase) that uncouples

resveratrol from glucuronate. This is nature’s "smart bomb” drug delivery system,

releasing resveratrol right on target.

[Cancer Letters 231: 113–22, 2006; Oncogene 23: 6702–11, 2004; Toxicology Letters

161: 1–9, 2006; World Journal Gastroenterology 12: 5628–34, 2006; Investigative

Ophthalmology Visual Science 47: 3708–16, 2006; Cancer Detection Prevention 30:

217-23, 2006; Molecular Cancer Therapy 4: 554–61, 2005; Journal Biological Chemistry

278: 41482–90, 2003]

_____________________________________________




Page | 52

20. SKULLCAP Scutellaria baicalensis

One of the most highly regarded herbs in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is skullcap

(Scutellaria baicalensis ). It has been extensively researched and shown to have definite

anti-cancer properties. You may want to add it to your diet program and supplement

regime.

Chinese skullcap is a member of the mint family and grows in China and Russia. Its root

is a rich source of over 35 flavonoids, giving it a yellow color - hence its traditional

name of golden root or huang qin, the Chinese term for yellow gold (known as ogon in

Japanese).

One of the major flavonoids contained in the root of the plant is baicalin, which is being

studied for its anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antibacterial and anti-allergy

effects. Among other effects, skullcap is able to halt the replication of various human

cancer cell lines, via the inhibition of the 12 lipoxygenase enzyme system, and this is

attracting a great deal of attention from the scientific community.

Skullcap appears to be able to block cell proliferation, induce apoptosis (voluntary cell

death) and prevent experimental metastasis. It aids in DNA repair. It is also a powerful

antioxidant.

Very interestingly, baicalein inhibits the enzyme 5 alpha-reductase enzyme. This is the

enzyme which converts testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT), the “male

estrogen”. DHT is strongly associated with the development of prostate enlargement

(benign prostatic hyperplasia) and prostate cancer and so not a good thing. Great then,

that skullcap puts a stop to it. As such, it is potentially useful for the prevention and/or

treatment of androgen-dependent (testosterone-driven) disorders, including prostate

enlargement and prostate cancer.

Human Studies Involving Prostate Cancer Patients

Human studies have primarily involved patients with advanced prostate cancer who

were shown to be unresponsive to traditional medical drugs and other interventions. Ina study performed by researchers from the University of California at San Francisco and

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, an herbal combination containing

baicalein was administered orally to metastatic prostate cancer patients (previously

unresponsive to standard treatments). It was shown to demonstrate reversal and/or

stabilization of their condition - with significantly improved survival, quality-of-life scores

and other positive outcomes in almost all patients.




Page | 53

There are a number of studies with similar results. Studies following groups of men with

prostate cancer for up to four years have also shown that this herbal formula

significantly reduces PSA levels and improves survival and quality-of-life scores.

It seems to work with testosterone-sensitive tumors and testosterone-independent

tumors equally well.

[Porterfield H. UsToo PC-SPES surveys: review of studies and update of previous survey

results. Mol Urol, 2000 Fall; vol 4(3):p.289-91;discussion 293].

Dosage:

Therapeutic purposes: The usual doses, for therapeutic purposes, range from 150-200

mg per day of Baicalein.6

General wellness: Consider 50-100mg per day.

WARNING: Skullcap products have been found to be contaminated with a similar-

looking plant known as germander (Teucrium chamaedrys ) that can cause hepatitis

Toxicity and Adverse Side Effects

Be sensible and take it easy. Stop taking it if you feel bad or strange. The two main

complications are liver damage and pneumonitis (lung inflammation, not infective).

Overdose can result in stupor, confusion or even seizures.

_____________________________________________

21. Procrit and Aranesp

Don’t let doctors give you these drugs. It’s crazy!

Two new studies provide more evidence that drugs such as Procrit and Aranesp, often

used by cancer patients to fight anemia-linked fatigue, may boost the risk of death and

serious adverse events such as blood clots.

They work by stimulating the bone marrow to produce new red blood cells, according to

the U.S. National Institutes of Health. They are used to treat anemia caused by




Page | 54

chemotherapy and to treat anemia in people with chronic kidney disease who are on

dialysis.

Typical: give you drugs till you are poisoned and sick, then give you more drugs to

combat these side-effects!

Butu rising deaths and complications have led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in

2007 to ask the drugs’ manufacturers to add a “black box” warning to the medications.

The warning indicates that the medications should be used at the lowest possible

doses to avoid risks such as blood clots, heart attacks, stroke, congestive heart failure,

increased tumor growth and an increased risk of death.

Two new clinical trials have again emphasized the dangers. In the first study, Reiman

and other researchers analyzed data from 52 clinical trials that included more than

12,000 people. It showed the use of drugs increased the risk of death by a factor of 15% to 16%. That’s pretty scary.

“At best, these drugs don’t seem to improve longevity,” Reiman said. “They may have

some benefits in improving quality of life.”

The report is published in the April 30 online edition of the Canadian Medical

Association Journal.

In another report, in the May 2, 2009 issue of The Lancet, researchers led by Dr. Julia

Bohlius, from the University of Bern in Switzerland, looked at the findings from 53

cancer trials that included a total of almost 14,000 patients. More than 1,500 patients

died during the study period, and almost 5,000 patients died overall.

This study came up with the figure of 17% increase in deaths during the study period.

The findings “show that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increase mortality in all

patients with cancer, and a similar increase might exist in patients on chemotherapy,”

said Bohlius.

Dr. Charles Bennett, the A.C. Beuhler professor of geriatric medicine at the Feinberg

School of Medicine at Northwestern University, helped conduct a study, published in the

Journal of the American Medical Association early last year, that also found similar risks

for the use of ESAs by cancer patients. Bennett believes the new data support those

findings. “The message is clear: There is a safety concern that’s real and significant,” he

said.




Page | 55

22. Is This A Joke?

A 2007 study found that after 12 months, 22% of women being treated for breast

cancer had ceased using the drug. At 24 months 28% had stopped Tamoxifen, and at

3.5 years 35% had stopped the treatment. [Cancer, Online: January 22, 2007 Print

Issue Date: March 1, 2007]

That’s because Tamoxifen’s side effects are very bad, yet the drug only marginally

effective. In one Tamoxifen study, among 6600 healthy women who took Tamoxifen,

there were 69 fewer tumors compared to 6000 other women who took a dummy pill. In

other words, Tamoxifen benefited only about 1 in 100 high-risk women as a preventive

measure. Yet it was widely hailed as a breakthrough! [Associated Press Oct. 30, 1998]

Ninety-nine women would have to take Tamoxifen and be subject to its side effects for

one woman to escape breast cancer.

Among the serious and life-threatening events associated with Tamoxifen are uterine

malignancies (yes it causes cancer!), stroke, and pulmonary embolism, not to mention

blinding cataracts, aged skin, hair loss.

In fact a brand new study (American Cancer Society, Atlanta; Feb. 8, 2010, Journal of

Clinical Oncology, online), the ACS—not normally famous for being frank—has

acknowledged that it appears to affect cognitive abilities, including some types of

memory.

"Our results are important for breast cancer patients because intact cognitive

functioning is known to be an important precondition for well-being," said study author

Christien Schilder, a doctoral student at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

After a year of taking tamoxifen (Nolvadex), women in the study scored lower on tests

of verbal memory functioning and other cognitive skills than did women taking another

breast cancer drug, exemestane (Aromasin).

Both drugs are considered hormone (or endocrine) therapy. Tamoxifen interferes with

the activity of estrogen, which can promote the growth of breast cancer. Exemestane is

an aromatase inhibitor, which decreases estrogen production in postmenopausal

women.

Schilder's study, funded by Pfizer, which makes Aromasin (they stand to gain!), was

published online Feb. 8 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

For the study, the researchers gave neuropsychological evaluations to 299 women,

including 179 with breast cancer. Testing was done at the start of the study and again




Page | 56

after the women with breast cancer had had a year of hormone therapy -- 80 women

taking tamoxifen and 99 taking exemestane.

The researchers found that tamoxifen users had lower scores in verbal memory and

executive functioning -- which includes such things as being able to shift attention

between two different parts of a task -- than did women without breast cancer. Women

taking exemestane had smaller declines in these two areas, considered not statistically

significant, compared with the healthy women, Schilder noted.

I wouldn’t worry that exemestane was better. Just focus on the damage caused by

Tamoxifen: something everybody knows but most have been unwilling to admit.

No substantial differences were found between any of the three groups in terms of

visual memory, working memory, verbal fluency, reaction speed and motor speed,

according to the study.

According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, "the benefits of tamoxifen as a

treatment for breast cancer are firmly established and far outweigh the potential risks."

One doctor is quoted as saying: "I'll take a little memory loss to keep my patients alive."

Oh yeah? If only Tamoxifen did anything worthwhile. But it doesn’t. Puff and hype says

Tamoxifen “reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence by 50%.” That’s actually 0.6%,

as against 1.3%. Not really all that impressive, is it. Despite the hyped relative benefits!

Just about 0.9% improvement. Is that worth looking an aged hag for?

That’s the worst of all: a woman taking Tamoxifen looks terrible and, to the fair sex,

that’s worth more than life itself.

_____________________________________________

23. Mercury Amalgam Kills Natural Killer (NK) Cells

Recent correspondent by Dr. Mike Godfrey MBBS, from Tauranga in New Zealand hasreminded me to remind you, in no uncertain terms, that mercury amalgam fillings can

be deadly for cancer patients.

Mercury does not just come from fish, which is what the dental industry wants you to

think. The majority comes from dental amalgam fillings, depending on how many you

have in your mouth.




Page | 57

That’s according to the WHO (1991). According to Health Canada (1996) 4 average

sized fillings (8 surfaces) would create the maximum “tolerable daily intake” (TDI) for a

70kg adult with the TDI being reached with only one filling for a small child. Notably,

many women weigh less than 70kg and according to mine and others’ research

findings, many middle-aged women have far more than 4 and frequently more than 10amalgam fillings. Notably, according to the published NZ Health Dept. figures in 1968,

those aged 21 years at that time had an average of 16 fillings and 15 year old

‘teenagers already had 13. The majority of those fillings have been replaced by fresh

amalgam over the years with an average of 10 fillings still frequently being retained into

middle-age.

Why is mercury a health hazard for cancer? Research based at the University of

Colorado 25 years ago investigated blood taken from patients diagnosed as having

adverse health effects from amalgam. The blood was immediately centrifuged and the

lymphocytes were extracted and stained for viability. A significant proportion was foundto be non-viable or effectively dead. They were therefore inactive in vivo . Eventually,

this research culminated with lymphocytes being cultured and one batch being exposed

to mercury at the so-called safe levels found in the blood of patients with a few

amalgam fillings. By the 4th day, 80% of those lymphocytes were dead compared to

only 3% in the control culture with no mercury (fig 1).

The role of the Natural Killer (NK) cell, a lymphocyte sub-set, includes identifying and

destroying abnormal or malignant cells. Notably, several papers have been published

describing how patients with “un-reactive” NK cells have either a higher incidence of

secondary spread or a higher death rate. These include:

12 year follow-up of 77 women comparing NK ability to react to their cultured

breast cancer cells, which showed that in women with a high mortality (47%)

their NK cells were non-reactive, whereas in women with low mortality (5%),

their NK cells were viable and reactive. [J, Wang R et al.Ann. NY Acad.

Sci.1993;690:340-2].

Immunological and psychosocial predictors of disease recurrence in early-stage

breast cancer. A paper which showed that the less active lymphocytes the higher

the cancer mortality [Levy S et al. Behavioural Medicine 1991;17(2):67-75 ].

And again, natural cytotoxicity activity in peripheral lymphocytes and cancer

incidence: An 11 year follow-up showed the same thing. (Less active

lymphocytes the higher the mortality [Imai K et al. Lancet 2000;356(9244):1794-

99].




Page | 58

As Dr. Godfrey points out, if one was to replace the word reactive with alive and non-

reactive with dead, it would seem as if there could be a hitherto unrecognised covert

cause for NK cell inactivity that warrants consideration and certainly further

investigation.” Huggins’ findings need independent replication with NK cells and I doubt

that this would be very onerous, time consuming or expensive given modern laboratorytechnology.”

Many German oncologists follow the teachings of the late Dr. Josef Issels (“Cancer

Confidential”, section #27), who is regarded by many as the leading oncologist of the

20th century, who treated over 8000 patients in his long career with reportedly the

highest success rate. Notably, Issels stated that over 95% of these patients had

significant causal factors in their teeth, jaws and tonsils and all patients would be

referred to the dental department as a priority where all amalgam fillings were replaced

and all devitalised (root-filled) teeth were extracted.

Take note that, while Hal Huggins and others have lost their license here in the US for

sounding the alarm about amalgams, both the Austrian and German Societies of

Oncology advise replacement of amalgam with non-toxic materials. The covert effect of

mercury on lymphocytes now appears to validate why Dr. Issels and his colleagues

included dental revision in their patient management.

As far as dentistry and breast cancer is concerned there is yet another cause for

concern. Statistically highly significant elevated levels of iron, nickel, chromium and

mercury have been found in breast cancers compared to those in benign breast

tumours (Ionescu JG et al. Neuroendocrin Lett. (2006)27;Suppl.1:36-9).

Significantly, all of these metals are in some ways carcinogenic (nickel and chromium

are known carcinogens) and all are regularly used in dentistry; iron, nickel and

chromium in non-precious bases for porcelain crowns and in bridgework and partials.

It seems likely that poisoning of the immune response it at least one mechanism by

which heavy metals cause cancer (remember the Eric Brockovich movie, in which

hexavalent chromium was the killer she uncovered).

Here’s a chart with Hal Huggins’ findings. Note that after just 4 days, the viability of NK cells dropped by almost 80%!




Page | 59

Lymphocyte culture viability (%)

with mercury exposure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Day 0 Day 2 Day 4

Control

mercury

Huggins HA. Medical impl ications o f dental mercury: A review.Explore 2007;vol.3 (2): 110-117

97

92

21

97

__________________________________________

24. Small Steps

Despite continuing pitiable attempts to discredit good nutrition as the number one anti-

cancer measure known, a small trickle of studies keeps creeping through. The positiveones are ignored; those with a discrediting slant are trumpeted throughout the media

(like the Bairati study mentioned above).

At Ohio State University, Dr. Gary Stoner and his colleagues have been studying the

cancer prevention potential of black raspberries for the last decade. Much of their work

has focused on a powdered form of the entire berry, which eliminates the water that

makes up 85 to 90 percent of the berry’s weight.

The researchers began with laboratory and animal model studies, and when these

studies demonstrated that the berry powder had prevention potential, they transitioned

to small human trials. Some promising results have been seen in early stage human

trials for esophageal, oral, and colorectal cancer prevention. A small skin cancer

prevention trial is on the immediate horizon.

The Ohio State team worked with collaborators from the University of Kentucky to

produce a berry powder-infused gel that is applied to precancerous oral lesions.




Page | 60

Treatment for 6 weeks shrunk the lesions by as much as 50 percent and decreased the

activity of genes related to cell growth and proliferation. Based on the results, NCI is

funding a phase II, placebo-controlled trial of the gel.

At UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dr. William Aronson is leading

another phase II clinical trial of fish oil supplement (omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty

acids). The trial is randomly assigning men with prostate cancer, who are scheduled to

have their prostates removed, to a low-fat diet with fish oil supplements or a standard

Western diet for 4 to 8 weeks.

By analyzing tissue and blood samples taken before and after surgery, the researchers

aim to determine whether the low-fat diet and fish oil combination alters the levels of

certain serum and tissue proteins that may be associated with prostate cancer

progression. “Such biomarkers may indicate that the intervention is working and will be

an essential component of long-term human dietary intervention trials,” Dr. Aronsonexplained.

Both short-term trials and analyses of tissue samples from the large trials that have

already been conducted may also help to address another critical issue: variability in

response. “Any time you do a study, even with drugs, you don’t get 100 percent

effectiveness. You only get some people who respond,” said Dr. Milner. “That’s what

happens with many nutrients as well.”

Moving Forward to Phase III Trials

While more early stage trials are on the horizon, those in the field agree that there will

probably be somewhat fewer large phase III trials. One such trial, the vitamin D and

omegA-3 trial, dubbed VITAL, is set to begin enrolling the first of 20,000 planned

participants in January 2010. The NCI-supported trial will test whether regular use of

vitamin D and fish oil supplements, taken either alone or in combination, reduces

overall cancer risk (as well as the risk of heart disease and stroke) in women aged 65

and older and men aged 60 and older.

“There is a narrow window of opportunity for doing a trial of this nature,” said the

study’s principal investigator, Dr. JoAnn Manson, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital

and Harvard Medical School. Only in the last 2 years, Dr. Manson believes, “has the

strength of the evidence for vitamin D and fish oil reached that threshold” to support

launching a trial of this size. In addition, she argued, if researchers wait too long, “so




many people could be taking [these supplements] that the trial will no longer be

feasible.”

Sales data on supplements support her concern. According to The Nielsen Company,

sales of vitamins and supplements for June 2008 to June 2009 were up 5 percent over

the previous year, totaling $1.5 billion. Vitamin D and fish oil are two of the biggest

sellers.

VITAL researchers will analyze blood samples from a subset of participants to see if

baseline levels of markers like 25-hydroxy vitamin D, the primary form of vitamin D

circulating in the blood, and omega-3s correlate with reduced disease risk. And because

the trial has a specific focus on recruiting a large number of minority participants, the

researchers can analyze whether factors like participants’ race or ethnic background

influenced the response to the supplements and whether supplement consumption can

reduce health disparities by race.

Advances may not come as fast as some might like, but they are happening, said Dr.

Aronson. “I think we’re going to make very significant progress over the next 5 years

and we’re going to gain important information that we can incorporate into larger

trials.”

_____________________________________________

That’s it for this issue. Thanks!

Prof.

Cancer Confidential Update r

Documents

Transcript of Cancer Confidential Update r