2415 N. Triphammer Road Ithaca, NY 14850

follow Bartholomew Family Chiropractic on Youtube follow Bartholomew Family Chiropractic on facebook Locate Bartholomew Family Chiropractic on Google Maps

Health Articles

Researchers Identify Protein Linking Sugar to Cancer

Brian Bartholomew - Monday, February 18, 2013

Researchers Identify Protein Linking Sugar to Cancer

Close-up of sugar wiith black background
Image courtesy of Hemera / thinkstock

A Madrid-based research team has determined that prolonged levels of high blood sugar "increase the activity of a gene widely implicated in cancer progression."

What They Found

While it is well accepted that sugar plays a dangerous role in the development of obesity and type 2 diabetes, sugar's relationship to cancer has been far less clear up to this point.

The team of scientists, led by Dr. Custodia Garcia Jimenez at Madrid's University Rey Juan Carlos, was analyzing the relationship between sugar in the intestine and the release of insulin by the pancreas. They found that, when excess sugar causes the intestine to release the hormone GIP, it simultaneously increases the activity of a protein that can transform normal, healthy cells into immortal, cancerous cells. This protein is known as beta-catenin.

How it Happens

Excess sugar triggers a harmful, three-part chain reaction:

  1. First, excess sugar (table sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc.) works its way into the intestine.
  2. To regulate the level of sugar in the blood, the intestine releases the hormone GIP to instruct the pancreas to produce insulin.
  3. Beta-catenin, which "strictly" relies on sugar levels, regulates the intestine's production of GIP. As sugar levels increase, so does the activity of beta-catenin.

Simply, a sustained high blood sugar level increases the activity of a mechanism that  helps cancer progress.

"We were surprised to realize that changes in our metabolism caused by dietary sugar impact on our cancer risk," Dr. Garcia Jimenez told the Science Daily. "We are now investigating what other dietary components may influence our cancer risk. Changing diet is one of easiest prevention strategies that can potentially save a lot of suffering and money."

What We Already Knew

For more than a decade, beta-catenin mutations have been linked to the progression of several types of cancer, including ovarian, prostate and colon cancer. Similarly, sugar has been shown to suppress immune function, increase inflammation and actually fuel viruses, bacteria and cancers. Cancerous cells actually have eight times more sugar receptors than oxygen receptors (healthy cells, conversely, thrive on oxygen).

Excess sugar levels greatly increase beta-catenin activity. To fight inflammation and the development of disease, dietary sugar consumption should actively be controlled.

Going Sugar-Free


To help you achieve lasting health, Maximized Living has created two meal plans that control and eliminate dietary sugar intake.

  • Using the Advanced Plan, patients eliminate all sugars to reestablish proper hormone function and halt the development of disease.
  • The Core Plan, the second option, drastically reduces sugar consumption and enables patients to avoid hidden sources of sugar like ketchup and mayonnaise.

To learn more, contact your nearest Maximized Living Doctor to pick up a copy of the"Maximized Living Nutrition Plans."

Killing Cancer


Diet plays an immensely important role in the development of this terrible disease. Whether you're trying to avoid a diagnosis or are actively battling cancer, "The Cancer Killers" can provide you with a series of all-natural defenses. Start taking advantage of your body's cancer-killing ability today.   

Chemotherapy Backfires and Causes Growth in Cancer Stem Cells

Brian Bartholomew - Sunday, November 04, 2012

Chemotherapy backfires - causes healthy cells to feed growth of cancer tumors

Tuesday, August 07, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) Ever since chemotherapy was introduced into the practice of western medicine, doctors and oncologists have been trying to answer this nagging question: Why does chemotherapyseem to work at first, but then cancer tumors cells grow back even more aggressively while the body becomes resistant to chemotherapy?

It turns out that chemotherapy damages healthy cells, causing them to secrete a protein that accelerates the growth of cancer tumors. (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/chemotherapy-backfire-boost-cancer-growth-st...)

This protein, dubbed "WNT16B," is taken up by nearby cancer cells, causing them to "grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. He's the co-author of the study that documented this phenomenon, published in Nature Medicine.

This protein, it turns out, explains why cancer tumors grow more aggressively following chemotherapy treatments. In essence, chemotherapy turns healthy cells into WNT16B factories which churn out this "activator" chemical that accelerates cancer tumor growth.

The findings of the study were confirmed with prostate cancer, breast cancer and ovarian cancer tumors. This discovery that chemotherapy backfires by accelerating cancer tumor growth is being characterized as "completely unexpected" by scientists.

The chemotherapy fraud exposed

As NaturalNews has explained over the last decade, chemotherapy is medical fraud. Rather than boosting the immune response of patients, it harms the immune system, causing tumors to grow back. This latest researching further confirms what we've known for years in the holistic health community: That chemotherapy is, flatly stated, poison. It's not "treatment," it's not medicine, and it's not prevention or a cure. It's poison with virtually no medicinal value except in perhaps one to two percent of cancer cases.

The No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy is, by the way, cancer. Cancer centers should technically be renamed "poison centers" because they are in the business of poisoning patients with a toxic cocktail of chemicals that modern science reveals to be a cancer tumor growth accelerant!


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036725_chemotherapy_cancer_tumors_backfires.html#ixzz2BJa6yXCJ

Chemo Is It Really the Cure?

Brian Bartholomew - Sunday, November 04, 2012
cancer

Chemo 'benefits' wildly over-hyped by oncologists; cancer patients actually believe they will be 'cured' by poison

Wednesday, October 31, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer


(NaturalNews) Mainstream medical researchers are finally starting to admit that toxic chemotherapy drugs do absolutely nothing to cure cancer, and often cause cancer patients to die much more quickly than they otherwise would apart from getting the so-called "treatment." Dr. Deborah Schrag from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and her colleagues let the cat out of the bag in a recent study they published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which revealed that most cancer patients have no idea that their disease will never be cured as a result of chemotherapy.

According to the study's findings, as many as 69 percent of terminally ill lung cancer patients and 81 percent of terminally ill colorectal patients have no idea that chemotherapy drugs are fully incapable of curing their cancers. Though they are said to potentially help some cancer patients live slightly longer lives, chemotherapy drugs admittedly do not stop the growth or spread of cancer cells and tumors, which means many of the patients who opt for the treatment are not being told the full truth about its major shortcomings.

"There is a lot of harm in not having patients understand the finality of the disease," said Dr. Hossein Borghaei, an oncologist from the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the research. "[Chemotherapy drugs] are very powerful, they have a lot of side effects, the chemotherapy is going to harm you more than it helps you, and it can actually shorten your life. All of this should be taken into account."

Dr. Borghaei's statements are chilling because they affirm what we have been saying here at Natural News for quite some time -- that chemotherapy is nothing but a sham "treatment" that puts cancer patients through needless pain and suffering while making the cancer industry rich. And perhaps the most disturbing part about this now-normalized form of medical quackery is that oncologists typically fail to disclose to their patients the fact that chemotherapy does not even cure cancer, which gives them false hope.

Chemotherapy causes more cancer, decreases patients' chances of survival

Another important tidbit of reality that is often left out of the discussions between oncologists and their patients is that patients who somehow survive their cancers following chemotherapy poisoning do so in spite of the treatment, and not because of it. Poisoning the body with chemicals via chemotherapy only ends up destroying the immune system and causing the bodily organs to shut down, which obviously shortens lifespan rather than lengthening it.

Back in August, it was revealed that chemotherapy actually fuels the growth of cancer cells, contradicting many decades' worth of medical misinformation that continues to claim chemotherapy targets cancer cells for destruction. Any chance the body would otherwise have at recovery, in other words, is all but eliminated as a result of chemotherapy, as the treatment literally destroys the body's own innate, cancer-targeting immune factors.

"[T]raditional (cancer) therapies like surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation do not destroy the small number of cells driving the cancer's growth," said the University of Michigan (UM)'s Comprehensive Cancer Center recently, following the release of several other studies showing that conventionally-accepted cancer treatments are a complete failure. "Instead of trying to kill all the cells in a tumor with chemotherapy or radiation, we believe it would be more effective to use treatments targeted directly at ... cancer stem cells."

Sources for this article include:

http://www.reuters.com


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037768_chemotherapy_oncologists_hype.html#ixzz2BJZTF4UO

Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism

Brian Bartholomew - Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism (Book Excerpt)

Friday, February 01, 2008 by: Andreas Moritz


(NaturalNews) What you are about to read may rock or even dismantle the very foundation of your beliefs about your body, health and healing. The title, Cancer Is Not a Disease, may be unsettling for many, provocative to some, but encouraging for all. This book will serve as a life-altering revelation for those who are sufficiently open-minded to consider the possibility that cancer is not an actual disease. Instead, they will begin to view cancer to be a profoundly elaborate and final attempt by the body to heal itself and stay alive for as long as circumstances permit; circumstances that, as you will discover, are most likely in your control.

It will perhaps astound you to learn that if you are afflicted with any of the root causes of cancer (which constitute the real illness) you would most likely die quickly unless your body actually grew cancer cells. In this work, I propose the understanding that cancer is a healing process that we ought to support, not suppress or fight. I provide evidence that this rather unorthodox approach to healing cancer is far more effective than the methods that involve destroying it.

I further claim that cancer - the body's final healing mechanism - will only kick in after the body's main waste removal and detoxification mechanisms have already been rendered inefficient.

In extreme circumstances, exposure to large amounts of cancer-producing agents (carcinogens) can bring about a collapse of the body's defenses within several weeks or months, which may subsequently require a rapid and aggressive growth of a cancerous tumor to deal with it. By and large, though, it takes many years, or even decades, for so-called 'malignant' tumors to form and become diagnostically noticeable.

Unfortunately, basic misconceptions or complete lack of awareness about the true reasons behind malignant tumor growth have turned misaligned cells into vicious monsters that indiscriminately attempt to kill us, perhaps in retaliation for our sins or abusing the body. However, as you are about to find out, cancer is on our side, not against us. Unless we change our perception of what cancer really is, it will most likely resist treatment, particularly the most advanced and commonly applied methods. If you have cancer, and cancer is indeed part of the body's complex survival responses and not a disease, as I claim it is, you must find answers to the following important questions:

- What reasons coerce your body into developing cancer cells?
- Once you have identified these reasons, how will you need to deal with them to allow your body to heal?
- What determines the type and severity of cancer with which you are afflicted?
- If cancer is indeed a healing mechanism, what will you need to do to avoid the body having to employ such extreme measures of self-preservation in the future?
- Since the body's original genetic design always favors the continuance of life and protection against adversities of any kind, how then could the body possibly permit a genetic change to occur that causes its own demise?
- Why do almost all cancers disappear by themselves, without medical intervention?
- Do radiation, chemotherapy and surgery actually cure cancer in some people, or do cancer patientsheal themselves, in spite of these radical, side-effect-loaded treatments?
- What roles do fear, frustration, low self-worth and repressed anger play in the origination and outcome of cancer?
- Why do so many children develop brain tumors or leukemia?

To deal with and heal the root causes of cancer, you ought to find satisfying and practical answers to the above questions. If you feel the inner urge to make sense of this life-changing event (cancer, that is), you will greatly benefit from continuing to read this book. Cancer can be your greatest opportunity to help restore balance to all aspects of your life, but it can also be the harbinger of severe trauma and suffering if you perceive it as a threat to your life.

Either way, you will discover that you are always in control of your body. To live in a human body, you must have access to a certain amount of life-sustaining energy. You may either use this inherent energy for nourishing and healing the body or waste it on fighting a battle against a disease that medical theory believes is out to kill you. The choice is ultimately yours.

In case you consciously or unconsciously choose negligence of, or going into battle against, your body over loving attention and self-respect, it will likely end up having to fight for its life. Bottom line, the main issue in question is not whether you have cancer but how you perceive it and what you are going to do about it.

Cancer is but one of the many possible ways the body forces you to alter the way you see and treat yourself, including your physical body. You may either make out cancer to be something dreadful that leaves you victimized and powerless or see it as an opportunity to stand up for yourself, your values, and self-respect. This inevitably brings up the subject of spiritual health, which I believe plays at least as important a role in cancer as physical and emotional reasons do.

Cancer appears to be a highly confusing and unpredictable disorder. It seems to strike the very happy and the very sad, the rich and the poor, the smokers and the non-smokers, the very healthy and the not so healthy. And although cancer occurrence among children used to be extremely rare, it is not rare anymore.

People from all backgrounds and occupations can have cancer. However, if you dare look behind the mask of its physical symptoms, such as the type, appearance and behavior of a cancerous tumor, you will find that cancer is not as coincidental or unpredictable as it seems to be.

What makes 50% of the American population so prone to developing cancer, when the other half has no risk at all? Blaming the genes for that is but an excuse to cover up ignorance of the real causes or lure people afflicted with cancer into costly treatment and prevention programs.

Later in the book, I will discuss the most recent research done on possible genetic inheritance factors in relation to cancers of the breast, lungs, and many others. You will be astounded to find out that genes have little, if anything, to do when members from several generations of the same family develop the same types of cancer. In fact, top genetic researchers now affirm that gene-behavior is ultimately determined by the way we eat, think, emote and live our lives. Genes don't just accidentally malfunction one day and cause cancer in everyone related to them (family members).

Cancer has always been an extremely rare illness, except in industrialized nations during the past 50-60 years. However, human genes have not significantly changed for thousands of years. Why would they change so drastically now, and suddenly decide to attack and destroy the bodies of nearly half of the population? The answer to this question, which I will further elaborate on in this book, is amazingly simple: Although genes may be undergoing mutation for reasons discussed later, even if they became damaged or faulty, they still would not be able to kill anyone.

It is important to know that cancer rarely causes someone to die, although it undeniable that many people afflicted with cancer also die. Nonetheless, unless a tumor causes a major mechanical obstruction in a vital organ or severely impedes the blood flow to it, or the lymph drainage from it, a cancer patient is much more likely to die from the reasons that lead to cell mutation and tumor growth than from the cancer itself.

Every cancer therapy should be focused on the root causes of cancer, yet most oncologists typically ignore them. For example, a diet consisting of junk foods that are typically deprived of any nutritional value and real energy causes chaotic, traumatic conditions in the body that are identical to those experienced during physical starvation. In this book, I will elaborate on how such a process of self-destruction is bound to require a major healing response on behalf of the body.

It is becoming increasingly evident that almost all cancers are preceded by some kind of traumatic event in the past, such as a divorce, the death of a loved one, an accident, the loss of a job or possessions, or an ongoing conflict with a boss or relative. The body has no other choice than to respond to such profound stress factors with predictable biological survival or coping mechanisms that may involve temporary abnormal cell growth. That most doctors agree with the theory that the resulting tumor is a disease, not a healing mechanism, doesn't mean it is true.

Cancerous tumors are merely symptoms of disease that are caused by something else that may not be obvious at first. It is clear, though; they don't just pop up for no reason. For one thing, constant emotional conflicts, resentment, guilt and shame can easily suppress the body's immune system, digestive functions and basic metabolic processes, and thereby create the conditions for the occurrence of a cancerous tumor.

Fortunately, the psychological stress/cancer-connection no longer lingers in the realm of fiction and uncertainty. Supported by ample scientific evidence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) make this important statement on their web site: "Intensive and prolonged stress can lead to a variety of short- and long-term negative health effects. It can disrupt early brain development and compromise functioning of the nervous and immune systems. In addition, childhood stress can lead to health problems later in life including alcoholism, depression, eating disorders, heart disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases."

In spite of the undeniable evidence that backs up the CDC's claims, most medical doctors rarely acknowledge or attempt to treat these root causes of disease but instead focus on eradicating its symptoms. Perhaps, this crucial, potentially fatal, flaw permeating almost the entire medical field is rooted in the complete absence of the stress/disease connection; the mind/body relationship is certainly not taught at medical schools.

After having seen thousands of cancer patients over a period of three decades, I began to recognize a certain pattern of thinking, believing and feeling that was common to most of them. To be more specific, I have yet to meet a cancer patient who does not feel burdened by some poor self-image, unresolved conflict and worries, or past emotional conflict/trauma that still lingers in his subconscious mind and cellular memories. I believe that cancer, the physical disease, cannot occur unless there is a strong undercurrent of emotional uneasiness and deep-seated frustration.

Cancer patients typically suffer from lack of self-respect or worthiness, and often have what I call an unfinished business in their life. Cancer can actually be a way of revealing the source of such an unresolved, inner conflict. Furthermore, cancer can help them come to terms with such a conflict, and even heal it altogether. The way to take out weeds is to pull them out along with their roots. This is how we ought to treat cancer; otherwise, it may recur eventually.

I often hear the argument that the emotional stress/cancer connection may apply to adults but certainly cannot apply to young children who have fallen ill with leukemia or brain cancer. I tend to disagree, and the CDC's position in this matter confirms my understanding. Childhood stress can lead to cancer, according to the CDC. And, "human beings experience stress early, even before they are born," say the CDC on their web site.

It is a scientific fact that some of the most powerful influences that a child a can experience occur while it is still in the mother's womb. It has been clearly demonstrated that what a mother goes through emotionally and physically has a strong impact on the emotional and physical health of her child. My book Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation describes in greater detail how strongly fetuses react to ultrasounds and that this can lead to developmental problems later on.

There is further evidence that not having a normal childbirth but being born by Cesarean section can have traumatic effects on babies. In addition, not breastfeeding a baby and keeping a baby in a separate room from the mother can cause a biological separation conflict which can even cause crib death. Not sensing and feeling the heartbeat of the mother turns out to be anxiety-provoking for an infant. Prematurely born babies are particularly traumatized by separation anxiety.

Furthermore, vaccinations cause biological shocks, similar to mini strokes, besides exposing the baby to numerous carcinogenic toxins contained in vaccines. The pain of the injection and the resulting healing response may also have trauma-evoking consequences.

Absence of breastfeeding is well known to cause psychological, emotional, and developmental problems to a young child.

Direct exposure to the radiation emanated by cell phones while in the womb and thereafter can profoundly affect the health of children, according to recent research.

An inadequate diet that includes sugar, cow's milk, animal proteins, and fried foods, and other junk foods, greatly affects children, too. And if mothers drink alcohol, eat junk food or take medication during pregnancy, or were vaccinated themselves, this also has a detrimental effect on the baby's health.

Babies treated for infection with antibiotics is severely damaging to their growing immune systems.
It has been shown recently that babies have as many as 250 chemicals in their blood, many of which are highly carcinogenic. Mothers, who are not in good health and still breastfeed their babies, actually contaminate them. In series of studies, the poison fluoride, added to the municipal drink water in the United States and other countries, has been clearly linked to causing cancer of the bone (osteosarcoma), and other types of cancer. The good news is that after having endorsed fluoride in drinking water for decades, in January 2011, the CDC issued an urgent warning that the current levels of fluoride in drinking water can cause serious harm to children.

Clamping the umbilical cord too early, instead of the required 40-60 minutes after birth, can reduce the oxygenation of the blood in the baby by over 40%, and prevent filtering toxins out of the blood through the placenta. This relatively new practice is found to have severely negative effect on the growth of children. Whatever affects a child physically, also affects it emotionally and psychologically. In other words, one doesn't need to be a grown up to be gripped by emotional trauma.

Research findings also demonstrate that childhood stress can impact adult health. One of the largest studies of its kind, the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, demonstrates a link between specific 1) violence-related stress, including child abuse, neglect, and repeated exposure to intimate partner violence, and 2) risky behaviors and health problems in adulthood.

The ACE Study, a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Kaiser Permanente's Health Appraisal Clinic in San Diego, covered over 17,000 adults participating in the research from 1995 to 1997. It collected and analyzed detailed information on the participants' past history of abuse, neglect, and family dysfunction as well as their current behaviors and health status.

The ACE Study findings have been published in more than 30 scientific articles. They revealed that childhood abuse, neglect, and exposure to other adverse experiences are common. Almost two-thirds of study participants reported at least one ACE, and more than one in five reported three or more. The ACE Study findings suggest that certain experiences are major risk factors for the main causes of illness and death, as well as poor quality of life in the United States.

Remember, prolonged emotional stress can compromise the immune system and thereby render the body susceptible to virtually every type of illness, including cancer. I will return to his important subject later.

The first chapter of this book provides you with profound insights into what cancer really is and stands for, seen from a physical perspective. It is an understanding of cancer you may never have come across before. This new and yet timeless comprehension of cancer allows for new approaches targeted at actually healing the causes of cancer instead of merely fixing its symptomatic manifestations.

You will also learn about the astonishing discoveries made by leading cancer researchers that prove cancer is not caused by cell mutation alone but requires the support and participation of the entire organism. Furthermore, check out the new findings that show why so many diagnosed cancerous tumors are actually completely harmless and disappear on their own.

Chapters Two and Three deal with the physical and emotional/spiritual causes, respectively. For clarity sake, I have tried to separate these categories, although I am very much aware that such a division is arbitrary and non-existent. I have done this for one purpose only: to emphasize that healing the causes of cancer must include restoring one's physical, emotional and spiritual well-being.

Leaving out just one of these factors would undermine the chances of full recovery and eventually lead to the recurrence of cancer (most medically treated cancers reoccur). At least, such an incomplete approach would seriously affect one's mental and physical health and, foremost of all, one's state of happiness and self-worth.

The following statement, which runs like a red thread through the entire book, is very important in the consideration of cancer: "Cancer does not cause a person to be sick; it is the sickness of the person that causes the cancer." And I will add to this statement that "Once a cancer has occurred, its main purpose is to return the sick person to a balanced condition of mind, body and spirit."

This is so contradictory to what conventional medicine and the media want you to believe, that it may sound outrageous to you. Yet whether cancer heals you or leads to your demise has actually more to do with what is going in your personal life than with the cancer itself, that is, how aggressive it is, or how early it is being detected.

Take David, for example. At age 58, he was diagnosed with lung cancer during a routine health checkup. Although, he never felt bad before the diagnosis, his health declined rapidly during the following two weeks. He lost his appetite, he couldn't sleep anymore, his breathing became very shallow and he suffered severe panic attacks and chest pain. He died 20 days after the diagnosis. The death certificate said he died from lung cancer, but it is clear that without the cancer diagnosis, none of these overwhelming stress-induced effects would have occurred.

There is no doubt (anymore) that emotional stress can shut down your immune system and not only prevent your body from healing, but actually make you very ill. There is medical evidence to show that during severe stress, people can die from a massive heart attack without any prior heart condition or clogged arteries.

Your ability to recover your health requires you to become and feel whole again on all levels of body, mind and spirit. Once the cancer causes and other impediments to feeling whole have been properly identified, it will become apparent what needs to be done to achieve complete recovery. This is the subject matter of Chapter Four.

It is a medical fact that every person has millions of cancer cells in the body at all times in his life. This is not an indication that there is something wrong with us. On the contrary, as we shall see, this forms an essential part of maintaining the body's healthy equilibrium.

These millions of cancer cells remain undetectable through standard tests. However, they show up as tumors once they have multiplied to several billion. When doctors announce to their cancer patients that the treatments they prescribed had successfully eliminated all cancer cells, they merely refer to tests that are able to identify the detectable size of cancer tumors.

Standard cancer treatments may lower the number of cancer cells to an undetectable level, but this certainly cannot eradicate all cancer cells. As long as the causes of tumor growth remain intact, cancer may redevelop at any time, in any part of the body, and at any speed.

Curing cancer has little to do with getting rid of a group of detectable cancer cells. Treatments like chemotherapy and radiation are certainly capable of poisoning or burning many cancer cells, but they also destroy healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, etc., which often leads to permanent irreparable damage of entire organs and systems in the body.
The toxic chemicals contained in chemotherapy drugs alone can cause such severe inflammation in every cell of the body that even the hair follicles can no longer hold on to the strands of hair.

A real cure of cancer does not come at the expense of destroying other vital parts of the body. It is achievable only when the causes of excessive growth of cancer cells have been addressed and the body is being properly supported through its healing process. Cancer is the healing process that the body may choose to reestablish homeostasis. Not recognizing cancer as a healing mechanism can turn out to be fatal, and it often is.

This book is dedicated to dealing with the causes of cancer, not with its symptoms. Treating cancer as if it were a disease is a trap that millions of people have fallen into and they have paid a high price for not attending to its root causes.

While I strongly believe that cancer is a final healing phase, not a disease, I am fully aware that most people consider cancer to be a dreaded disease. I make no claims that my understanding of cancer is the only correct one, but I propose it is one of many correct ones.

The old saying, "Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness," reveals 'truth' to be a subjective projection of the mind, conscious or subconscious. In other words, if you insist that cancer is a terrible disease that may take your life, this death-fright belief of yours is likely going to fulfill your dreaded expectation. Remember, emotional trauma suppresses the immune system and prevents healing. Likewise, if you perceive cancer to be a healing phase that deals with an underlying imbalance, your truth is also going to help you achieve a positive outcome of your uplifting expectation.

It is unfortunate that the medical profession has by and large discouraged patients to participate in, or affect, their own cures. Patients are rarely included in the process of healing. Instead, medical treatments are now propagated to be the sole remedy for today's ills. In truth, whether a person heals or doesn't is largely controlled by the state of the body, mind and spirit of the person. Accepting this as fact can have enormous self-empowering effects which I consider essential for healing to occur and be effective.

Power in the Word

Cancer is the second leading cause of death for Americans. According to the American Cancer Society, a total of 1,529,560 new cancer cases and 569,490 deaths from cancer were estimated to have occurred in the United States in 2010. Among men, the top three cancer diagnoses are prostate cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer. The leading types of cancer among women are breast cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer.

In addition, there are tens of thousands of underprivileged people who have cancer, but will not even receive a diagnosis because they cannot afford health insurance or a visit to the doctor.

Cancer is not just a word, but also a statement that refers to abnormal or unusual behavior of the body's cells. However, in quite a different context, cancer is referred to as a star sign. When someone says you are a 'cancer,' are you going tremble with fear of dying? Such a reaction is unlikely, because your interpretation of being of the cancer sign does not imply that you have cancer, the illness. But if your doctor called you into his office and told you that you had cancer, you would most likely feel shocked, paralyzed, numb, terrified, hopeless, or all of the above. The word 'cancer' has the potential to play a very disturbing and precarious role in your life, one that is capable of delivering a death sentence, and as you will discover in this book, actually execute it.

Although being a cancer patient seems to start with the diagnosis of cancer, its causes may have been present for many years prior to the patient feeling ill. Yet within a brief moment, the word 'cancer' can turn someone's entire world upside down.

Who or what in this world has bestowed this simple word or statement with such great power that it can preside over life and death? Or does it really possess this power? Could our collective, social conviction that cancer is a killer disease, along with the trauma-generating, aggressive treatments that follow diagnosis, actually be mainly responsible for the current dramatic escalation of cancer in the Western hemisphere? Such a thought is too far-fetched, you might reply! In this book, however, I will make the convincing point that cancer can have no power or control over you, unless the beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, thoughts, and feelings you have, allow it.

Would you be as afraid of cancer if you knew what caused it or at least understood what its underlying purpose was? Unlikely so! If the truth were told, you would probably do everything you could to remove the causes of the cancer and thereby lay the ground for the body to heal itself.

A little knowledge, which I also call ignorance, is in fact, a dangerous thing. Almost everyone, at least in the industrialized world, knows that drinking water from a filthy pond or polluted lake can cause life-threatening diarrhea. Yet, relatively few people realize that holding on to resentment, anger, and fear, avoiding exposure to the sun which causes vitamin D deficiency, not getting enough sleep on a regular basis, holding a cell phone to your head for an hour each day, being regularly exposed to X-rays, mammograms or CATS scans, or eating junk foods, chemical additives, and artificial sweeteners is no less dangerous than drinking polluted water. These habits of life may just take a little longer to kill a person than poison or tiny amoeba do, but there is no more doubt that they can.

Mistaken Judgment

We all know that if the foundation of a house is strong, the house can easily withstand external sources of stress, such as a violent storm or even an earthquake. As we shall see, cancer is merely an indication that something has been missing in our body and in our life. Cancer reveals that some aspect of our physical, mental and spiritual life stands on shaky ground and is quite fragile, to say the least.

It would be foolish for a gardener to water the withering leaves of a tree when he knows so well that the real problem is not where it appears to be, namely, on the level of those withered leaves. The dehydration of the leaves is merely a symptom of lacking water in the less apparent part of the plant - its root system. By watering the roots of the plant, the gardener naturally attends to the causative level, and consequently, the whole plant becomes revived and resumes its normal growth. To the trained eye of a gardener, the symptom of withering leaves is not a dreadful disease. He recognizes that the dehydrated state of these leaves is but a direct consequence of withdrawn nourishment that they need to sustain themselves and the rest of the plant.

Although this example from nature may appear to be a simplistic analogy, it nevertheless offers a basic understanding of some very complex disease processes in the human body. It accurately describes one of the most powerful and fundamental principles controlling all life forms on the planet. However skilled we may have become at manipulating the functions of our body through the tools of allopathic medicine, this basic law of nature cannot be suppressed or violated without paying the hefty price of suffering ill-health on the physical, emotional, and spiritual levels.

I fervently challenge the statement that cancer is a killer disease. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that cancer is not a disease at all. Many people who received a 'terminal' cancer sentence actually defied the prognosis and experienced complete remission.

The Search for Answers

There is no cancer that has not been survived by someone, regardless of how far advanced it was. If even one person has succeeded in healing his cancer, there must be a mechanism for it, just as there is a mechanism for creating cancer. Every person on the planet has the capacity to do both.

If you have been diagnosed with cancer, you may not be able to change the diagnosis, but it is certainly in your power to alter the destructive consequences that it (the diagnosis) may have on you, just as George did. The way you perceive the cancer and the steps you choose to take following the diagnosis are some of the most powerful determinants of your future wellness, or the lack of it. (Please also see Chapter Three, 'Demystifying Cancer.)

The indiscriminate reference to cancer as a killer disease by professionals and lay people alike has turned cancer into a disorder with tragic consequences for the majority of cancer patients and their families. Cancer has become synonymous with extraordinary fear, suffering, and death. This perception continues despite the fact that up to 90-95 percent of all cancers can appear and disappear of their own accord.

Not a day passes without the body making millions of cancer cells. Some people, under severe temporary stress, make more cancer cells than usual. These cancer cells cluster together as tumors that will disappear again once the stress impact has subsided and after a healing response (as indicated by symptoms of illness) has been completed. I will elaborate on the exact, predictable way this occurs in Chapter Three.

I wish to mention at this point that according to medical research, secretions of the DNA's powerful anticancer hormone, Interleukin II, drop under physical and mental duress and increase again when the person becomes relaxed and joyful. Low secretions of Interleukin II increase the incidence of cancer in the body, and normal secretions of this hormone keeps cancer at bay.

However, people are generally not under severe stress all the time. Since the incidence of cancer rises and falls with the experience of severe stress, many cancers vanish without any form of medical intervention and without causing any real harm. Accordingly, right at this moment, millions of people are walking around with cancers in their body without having a clue that they have them. Likewise, millions of people heal their cancers without even knowing it. Overall, there are many more spontaneous remissions of cancer than there are diagnosed and treated cancers.

The New York Times published an article in its October 2009 issue, page D5, that certainly raised some eye-opening questions in view of facts that have become highly inconvenient for advocates of the cancer business. The article, written by Gina Kolata, is entitled "Cancers Can Vanish Without Treatment, but How?"

In the article, Kolata points out that the arrow of cancer was supposed to point in one direction, like the arrow of time, that is, to grow and worsen. In October 2009, a paper published in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted that "data from more than two decades of screening for breast and prostate cancer call that view into question."

More sophisticated screening technologies find many small tumors that would not cause a problem if they were left alone, undiscovered by screening. These tumors are as dormant and harmless as small scars on the skin. As the paper concedes, these tumors were destined to stop growing on their own or shrink, or even, at least in the case of some breast cancers, disappear.

"The old view is that cancer is a linear process," said Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)."A cell acquired a mutation, and little by little it acquired more and more mutations. Mutations are not supposed to revert spontaneously."
Until recently, cancer researchers and doctors alike have falsely assumed (and projected their assumption as scientific fact), that cancer results from cell mutation (alteration of the genetic makeup of the cell), which then takes on a life of its own. However, the leading edge of cancer research points toward the discovery that uncontrolled and senseless cancer cell division does not take place all.

As Dr. Kramer points out, it is becoming increasingly clear that cancers require more than mutations to progress. They need the cooperation of surrounding cells and even, he said, "the whole organism, the person, whose immune system or hormone levels, for example, can squelch or fuel a tumor."

This makes cancer, Dr. Kramer said, "a dynamic process." His statement obviously raises an important question. Why would the entire body, including the brain, nervous system, immune system and endocrine system, as well as the personality and all the cells surrounding a cancer, support its growth? The answer is both fascinating and encouraging.

As the title of this book proposes, cancer is not a disease at all, it rather is a healing mechanism. The entire body supports the growth of a cancer so long it is in its best interest. Once the cancer no longer serves a purpose and the healing is complete, it either disappears or moves into a dormant, harmless state.

The new view that cancer does not take a predictable path, i.e., from mutation to disease, was difficult for some cancer doctors and researchers to accept. But apparently, more and more of the skeptics are now shifting gear and acknowledge that, contrary as it seems to everything they had thought, cancers can in fact disappear on their own.

One of the converts is Dr. Robert M. Kaplan, the chairman of the department of health services at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles. "At the end of the day, I am not sure how certain I am about this, but I do believe it," said Dr. Kaplan. He added, "The weight of the evidence suggests that there is reason to believe."

Still another cancer specialist, Dr. Jonathan Epstein at Johns Hopkins University, says that disappearing tumors are well known in testicular cancer. According to Dr. Epstein, during an operation on a man's testicle, a surgeon may just find scar tissue in place of a large diagnosed tumor.

The growing evidence that cancers can go backward or stop is now undeniable, and researchers are left with no other choice than to reassess their notions of what cancer really is and how it develops. Still, in my opinion, unless they recognize that cancer is a healing mechanism orchestrated by the entire organism to correct an underlying imbalance, they will continue to search for ways to fight cancer instead of supporting it through the healing process. This, however, requires trust in the body's wisdom, not suspicion that the body is faulty or broken.

The newly made discovery that cell mutation alone cannot cause cancer but must be supported by surrounding cells and the entire organism, speaks for itself. I have always viewed cancer as a friend of the body who assists it during turbulent times. Certainly the body seems to treat cancer as a friend, not an enemy. I believe that we should do the same.

In her article, Kolata writes about a fascinating statement made by Thea Tlsty, a professor of pathology at the University of California, San Francisco, and one of the world's most distinguished cancer researchers. Dr. Tlsty says that cancer cells and precancerous cells are so common that nearly everyone by middle age or old age is riddled with them. That was discovered in autopsy studies of people who died of other causes, with no idea that they had cancer cells or precancerous cells. They did not have large tumors or symptoms of cancer. "The really interesting question," Dr. Tlsty said, "is not so much why do we get cancer as why don't we get cancer?"

In the same context, I want to put forward this most intriguing question:"Why do some people feel sick when they have cancer while others who also have cancer live completely normal, healthy lives?" I will elucidate this crucial topic throughout the book.

Kolata raises yet another curious point: "The earlier a cell is in its path toward an aggressive cancer, researchers say, the more likely it is to reverse course. So, for example, cells that are early precursors of cervical cancer are likely to revert. One study found that 60 percent of precancerous cervical cells, found with Pap tests, revert to normal within a year; 90 percent revert within three years. Doesn't this show a different trend than previous proposed by cancer theorists?"

Of course, this prompts the question whether it is in fact better to leave many cancers untreated, so that they may either go into dormancy and become harmless, or disappear on their own. For many decades, doctors and health agencies have been pushing the agenda of early detection on the general population with claims that it is vitally important to catch cancers at an early stage. They argue, this allows for better and more successful treatment. However, once again, their assumptions may have been wrong all along.

Kolata further explains that "the dynamic process of cancer development appears to be the reason that screening for breast cancer or prostate cancer finds huge numbers of early cancers without a corresponding decline in late stage cancers."

In other words, discovering so many extra cancers through new and better screening methods has not reduced the incidence of advanced cancers. This clearly contradicts the assumption which asserts that early detection, which normally leads to early treatment, has any overall preventative or cancer incidence-reducing benefits. It also implies that many cancers are better left alone. This prompts the hypothesis that many early cancers go nowhere. With regard to breast cancer, there is indirect evidence that some actually disappear. Screening for breast and prostate cancers has clearly failed to reduce occurrence.

For good reason, Johns Hopkins now offers men with small prostate tumors an option of an "active surveillance," instead of having their prostates removed or destroyed. In the rare case that the cancer grows bigger, they can still have it removed. However, the frightening diagnosis of having prostate cancer discourages most men from going this route of wait and see. "Most men want it out," Johns Hopkins' Dr. Epstein said. I credit the decades of senseless fear-mongering by medical professionals and the quick-fix obsession among patients for this unfortunate situation.

I will add to this that the high doses of ionizing radiation emitted by cancer screening devices, such as Computed Tomography (CT) and mammography, etc., have actually contributed to the incidence of various types of cancer. Cancers associated with such radiation exposure include leukemia, multiple myeloma, breast cancer, lung cancer, and skin cancer. (For more details, see Ionizing Radiation in Chapter 5.)

In a Canadian study, researchers looked at the behavior of small kidney cancers (renal-cell carcinomas) which are among the cancers that are reported to regress occasionally, even when far advanced. The double blind control study, led by Dr. Martin Gleave, Department of Urologic Sciences at Vancouver General Hospital [N Engl J Med 1998; 338:1265-1271, April 30, 1998], compared an immunomodulating drug treatment, interferon gamma-1b, with a placebo in people with kidney cancer that had spread throughout their bodies.

Despite the lack of placebo-controlled trials, interleukin-2 and interferon have become the central component of most immunotherapeutic strategies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. The new study was supposed to show that these immunomodulators could control or reverse these kidney cancers, which are very resistant to chemotherapy.

Six percent of subjects in both groups had tumors that shrank or remained stable, which led the researchers to conclude that the treatment did not improve outcomes. The big question is, does treating cancer have any significant effect on clearing up cancers, or is it up to the body to determine that? At least in this study, the 6 percent of participants who benefited somewhat showed that whether they received medical treatment or not made no difference, except that those in the placebo group lived on average 3.5 months longer than those who received the drug treatment.

Dr. Gleave says that these days more patients are having ultrasound or CT scans for other reasons and learning that there is a small lump on one of their kidneys. In the United States, the accepted practice is to surgically remove those tumors. But, based on his findings, he asks, "Is that always necessary?"

According to the NY Times piece, Dr. Gleave's university is now participating in a countrywide study of people with small kidney tumors, asking what happens when those tumors are routinely examined, with scans, to see if they grow. Apparently, about 80 percent do not change or actually regress over the next three years.

The conclusion I draw from this important piece of research is that we are barking up the wrong tree if we believe we can outsmart the body. The body regresses or stops the growth of a tumor when it deems it necessary, not otherwise. If we poison, burn or cut out a tumor, the body may need to grow another one in order to continue or complete its healing activity.

The main flaw in the medical cancer theory lies in the assumption that cancer needs to be subdued in order to save a cancer patient's life. Until recently, nearly all scientists shared the opinion that unless a cancer is treated and stopped, it is destined to grow, spread and eventually kill the person. This is obviously not the case. Millions of people live with all kinds of cancer without a problem, and even without being aware of it, according to the work of Dr. Tlsty and many other top scientists.
The truth is, relatively few cancers actually become 'terminal.' A vast number of cancers clearly remain undiagnosed and are not found until autopsy.

Usually, these people don't die from cancer, but from something else, such as an accident. They don't even have symptoms that could prompt the doctor to prescribe any of the standard cancer-detecting tests. Doesn't it astonish you that 30 - 40 times as many cases of thyroid, pancreatic and prostate cancers are found in autopsy than are detected by doctors? So is cancer really the dangerous disease we were being told it is?

In 1993, the British medical journal Lancet published a study that showed early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment. The reason for that? For example, although 33 percent of autopsies in men reveal prostate cancer, only about 1 percent die from it.

After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but mortality rates only range from 0.1-2.4 percent. More specifically, the overall 5-year relative prostate cancer survival rate for 1995-2002 was 99 percent. The 5-year relative prostate cancer survival rates by race were 99.9 percent for white men and 97.6 percent for black men, regardless whether they had few or no signs or symptoms of prostate cancer, were free of disease, or had treatment.

New government recommendations (as of August 2008) call for oncologists to no longer treat men with prostate cancer past the age of 75 years because the treatments do more harm than good and offer no advantages over no treatment at all.

It must be noted that these low mortality rates especially apply to those who have neither been diagnosed with cancer nor received any treatment for cancer. Since according the government's own admission, mortality rates increase when cancers are being treated, it evidently shows what does the killing.

Once diagnosed and treated, the vast majority of cancers are never given a chance to disappear on their own. They are promptly targeted with an arsenal of deadly weapons such as chemotherapy drugs, radiation, and the surgical knife. Dormant tumors that would never really cause any harm to the body, may instead be aroused into powerful defensive reactions and become aggressive, not unlike relatively harmless bacteria that turn into dangerous super-bugs when attacked by antibiotic medication. It makes absolutely no sense that at a time you need to strengthen the body's most important healing system, the 'immune system,' you would subject yourself to radical treatments that actually weaken or destroy the immune system.

The problem with cancer patients today is that, terrified by the diagnosis, they submit their bodies to these cutting/burning/poisoning procedures that, more likely than not, will lead them more rapidly to the day of reckoning. The final sentencing may sound like this: "We have to tell you with our deepest regret that there is nothing more that can be done to help you."

The most important question a cancer patient may need to ask is not, "How advanced or dangerous is my cancer?" but, "What am I doing or not doing that puts my body into a situation of having to fight for its life?" Why do some people go through cancer as if it were the flu? Are they just lucky, or is there a mechanism at work that heals them and restores their health? On the contrary, what is the hidden element that prevents the body from healing cancer naturally, that makes cancer so dangerous, if indeed it is dangerous at all?

The answers to all these queries lie with the person who has the cancer, and does not depend on the degree of a particular cancer's 'viciousness' or the advanced stage to which it appears to have progressed. Do you believe that cancer is a disease? You will most likely answer, "Yes," given the 'informed' opinion that the medical industry and mass media have fed to the masses for many decades. Yet, the more important but rarely asked question remains, "Why do you think cancer is a disease?" You may answer, "Because I know cancer kills people every day." I would then question you further, "How do you know that it is the cancer that kills people?" You would probably argue that many people who have cancer die, so obviously it must be the cancer that kills them. Besides, you may reason, all the expert doctors tell us so.

Let me ask you another question, a rather strange one: "How do you know for sure that you are the daughter/son of your father and not of another man?" Is it because your mother told you so? What makes you think that your mother told you the truth? Probably because you believe her; and you have no reason not to. After all, she is your mother, and mothers do not lie about these things. Or do they? Unless you have your father do a paternity DNA test, or you look like him, you will never really know with absolute certainty that the person you believe to be your father is, in fact, your father. Nevertheless, your subjective belief has turned into something that you 'know' to be an irrefutable truth.

Although no scientific proof exists to show that cancer is a disease (versus a healing process), most people will insist that it is a disease because this is what they have been told to believe. Yet this belief is only hearsay based on other people's opinions. Finally, the infallible doctrine that cancer is a disease can be traced to some doctors who expressed their subjective feelings or beliefs about what they had observed and published them in some review articles or medical reports. Other doctors agreed with their opinion, and before long, it became a 'well-established fact' that cancer is a dangerous disease that somehow gets hold of people in order to kill them. However, the truth of the matter may actually be quite different and more rational and scientific than that.

Wisdom of Cancer Cells

Cancer cells are not part of a malicious disease process. When cancer cells spread (metastasize) throughout the body, it is not their purpose or goal to disrupt the body's vitals functions, infect healthy cells and obliterate their host (the body). Self-destruction is not the theme of any cell unless, of course, it is old and worn-out and ready to be turned-over and replaced. Cancer cells, like all other cells, know that if the body dies, they will die as well. Just because some people assume that cancer cells are there to destroy the body does not mean cancer cells have such a purpose or ability.

A cancerous tumor is neither the cause of progressive destruction nor does it actually lead to the death of the body. There is nothing in a cancer cell that has even remotely the ability to kill anything. What eventually leads to the demise of an organ or the entire body is the wasting away of cell tissue resulting from continued deprivation of nutrients and life force. The drastic reduction or shutdown of vital nutrient supplies to the cells of an organ is not primarily a consequence of a cancerous tumor, but actually its biggest cause.

By definition, a cancer cell is a normal, healthy cell that has undergone genetic mutation to the point that it can live in an anaerobic surrounding (an environment where oxygen is not available). In other words, if you deprive a group of cells of vital oxygen (their primary source of energy), some of them will die, but others will manage to alter their genetic software program and mutate in a most ingenious way: the cells will be able to live without oxygen and derive some of their energy needs from such things as cellular metabolic waste products.

It may be easier to understand the cancer cells phenomenon when comparing it with the behavior of common microorganisms. Bacteria, for example, are divided into two main groups, aerobic and anaerobic, meaning, those that need to use oxygen and those that can live without it. This is important to understand since we have more bacteria in our body than we have cells. Aerobic bacteria thrive in an oxygenated environment. They are responsible for helping us with the digestion of food and manufacturing of important nutrients, such as B-vitamins. Anaerobic bacteria, on the other hand, can appear and thrive in an environment where oxygen does not reach. They break down waste materials, toxic deposits and dead, worn-out cells.

The body sees the cancer as being such an important defense mechanism that it even causes the growth of new blood vessels to guarantee the much-needed supply of glucose and, therefore, survival and spreading of the cancer cells. It knows that cancer cells do not cause but, prevent death; at least for a while, until the wasting away of an organ leads to the demise of the entire organism. If the trigger mechanisms for cancer (causal factors) are properly taken care of, such an outcome can be avoided.

It is commonly believed that our immune system protects us against cancer. However, this is only partially true. On the one hand, the immune system readily destroys the millions of cancer cells that a healthy human body produces as part of the daily turnover of 30 billion cells. On the other hand, the immune system takes no action to eradicate cancer cells that develop in response to a build up of toxins, congestion and emotional stress.

Cancers and all other tissues in the body are larded with cancer-killing white cells, such as T-cells. In the case of kidney cancer and melanomas, for example, white cells make up 50 per cent of the mass of the cancers. Since these T-cells easily recognize foreign or mutated cell tissue such as cancer cells, you would expect these immune cells to attack cancer cells right away. However, the immune system allows cancer cells to recruit it to actually increase and spread the cancer to other parts of the body. Cancer cells produce specific proteins that tell the immune cells to leave them alone and help them to grow.

Why would the immune system want to collaborate with cancer cells to make more or larger tumors? Because cancer is a survival mechanism, not a disease. The body uses the cancer to keep deadly carcinogenic substances and caustic metabolic waste matter away from the lymph and blood and, therefore, from the heart, brain and other vital organs. Killing off cancer cells would in fact jeopardize its survival. Cleansing the body of accumulated toxins and waste products through the various cleansing methods advocated in my book Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation (www.ener-chi.com) removes the need for cancer.

Cancer is not a disease; it is the final and most desperate survival mechanism the body has at its disposal. It only takes control of the body when all other measures of self-preservation have failed. To truly heal cancer and what it represents in a person's life we must come to the understanding that the reason the body allows some of its cells to grow in abnormal ways is in its best interest and not an indication that it is about to destroy itself. Cancer is a healing attempt by the body for the body. Blocking this healing attempt can destroy the body. Supporting the body in its healing efforts can save it.

Andreas Moritz's book, Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism, explains the root causes of cancer and how to eliminate them for good. Available through www.amazon.com or www.ener-chi.com.

About the author

Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. He is the author of the international bestseller, The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush; Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Lifting the Veil of Duality, Cancer Is Not a Disease, It's Time to Come Alive, Heart Disease No More, Diabetes No More, Simple Steps to Total Health, Diabetes—No More, Ending the AIDS Myth. Feel Great - Lose Weight, Heal Yourself with Sunlight, and Vaccine-nation: Poisoning the Population, One Shot at a Time. For more information, visit the author's website: www.ener-chi.com


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/022578_cancer_body_disease.html#ixzz2Aw8lbwFM

Cancer Industry Experts Speak Out Causing Mass Uprising

Brian Bartholomew - Monday, October 29, 2012

Cancer Industry Experts Speak Out Causing Mass Uprising

  • Posted By: Dr. Isaac Jones
  • October 12th, 2012
  • 490 Views
  • 5 Comments
5 Comments   mail  21
Story-at-a-Glance
  • Cancer strikes nearly 1 in 2 men and more than 1 in 3 women.
  • One in three people will die prematurely from cancer, a highly preventable disease.
  • Despite what people may believe, we are not "winning" the over all war on cancer with several forms of cancer rising between 22% and 116% over a 30 year period!
  • This is in spite of the billions of dollars going into cancer research that is clearly controlled by the pharmaceutical industry.
  • The cancer awareness campaigns are sponsored by the multi-billion dollar cancer drug industry, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly etc.
  • Close to 100% of research dollars are focused on new drugs, surgeries treatments and etiology. The research they do into "prevention" is focused towards preventative screenings that often lead to unnecessary treatments and procedures!
  • Surgery for prostate cancer leaves 60 percent of men unable to have an erection, and up to 5 out of every 1000 people that get a colonoscopy have serious complications.
  • 60% of men over the age of 60 have undetected prostate cancer, yet only 3 percent of deaths in men are due to prostate cancer.
  • 39% of middle age women that died from other causes had un-detected breast cancer.
  • Research shows prostate cancer screenings don't decrease your likelihood of death from prostate cancer and have proven to be a failure.
  • Mammograms increase your risk of developing breast cancer 1.5 times!
  • Dennis Fryback PhD, and expert in medical decisions for the U.S. government said "A colonoscopy is like an expensive lottery ticket..."
  • The average tumbor grows for over 10 years before it becomes detectable.
  • Over 90% of people that have cancer treated with chemotherapy (if they don't die) will have it return.
  • According to the largest cancer research university in America (Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center) 95% fo cancer is environment and lifestyle related!
  • Cancer develops from the very things we address at DrJones.TV: environmental toxins, bio-toxins, nutrition, and cancer promoting psychology.
  • Whether you have cancer or not, a customized healthy lifestyle design program is essential for cancer prevention and reversal as I will write about in the future.
  • Anyone with cancer should include a customized anti-cancer lifestyle program in their healing program. Learn more here.

Cancer is a word that elicits emotions of fear, worry, anxiety and uncertainty especially when it hits close to home.

In a lifetime, cancer strikes nearly 1 in every 2 men, more than 1 in every 3 women and 1 out of 3 people will die prematurely from it.1

Each year over 1.3 million people get cancer, which is the size of Phoenix Arizona and over 550,000 will die from it, which is the size of Denver Colorado.

Despite the “we’re winning the war on cancer” propaganda, most forms of cancers are indisputably on the rise, as you will see.

In this article cancer trends that you aren’t hearing about will be reviled, the facts behind where your cancer money is going will be uncovered, you will learn the research behind cancer screenings, and the facts behind chemotherapy.

 Jaw-dropping Statements On Cancer That Leave You Scratching Your Head

Because of the trillions of dollars that have been spent on “winning the war” on cancer, the industry wants you to think we’ve come further than we have.

“ The National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have misled and confused the public and congress by repeated false claims that we are winning the war against Cancer.” – Samuel Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, Professor of Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health

For years doctors and institutions have been claiming that they will find the cure to cancer:

We can look forward to something like a penicillin for cancer and I hope and I hope within the next decade.” – Cornelius Rhoads Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 1953

We are so close to a cure for cancer. We lack only the will and the kind of money… that went into putting a man on the moon.” American Cancer Society full-page ad in NYT 1969

“… with a billion dollars for 10 years we could lick cancer.” – Testimony to Congress from the Director of M.D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute 1969

“ Cancer deaths can be cut in half by the year 2000.” – Peter Greenwald, M.D. The National Cancer Institute 1989

“ We are going to lick cancer by 2015” – Congressman Benjamin Cardin 2006

The reality is quite different. The 2005 Cancer Statistics Review compare increase in cancer rates between 1975-2005:

  • Thyroid cancer has increased by 116%
  • Testicular cancer has increased by 60%
  • Acute Childhood leukemia has increased by 82%
  • Non-Hodgkin’s lymphocytic leukemia has increased by 67%
  • Childhood brain cancer has increased by 39%
  • Post-menopausal breast cancer has increased by 22%

Unfortunately the list goes on.

On top of that, we’re spending more on cancer than we ever have before. In 1952 america spent $15 billion on cancer. In 2005 we spent $74 billion according to the NIH.

The Question You’re Probably Asking Yourself

The question you’re probably asking, which was the question I asked when I started to learn the reality of the cancer industry was, where has the billions of dollars in donations gone?

The best research we have for where the money goes is for the fiscal year 1996/1997. The total amount spent on cancer research funding was US$5.165 billion. The three major contributors were:

1. Federal funding, US$3.060 billion (almost entirely from National Cancer Institute and in 2012 it’s up to $5.081 billion);

2. Pharmaceutical company funding, US$1.6 billion; and

3. Funding by nonprofit organisations (e.g., Howard Hughes Medical Institute, American Cancer Society, Komen Foundation), US$305 million.

The European Union’s non-commercial funding into cancer research totals €1.43 billion!

If we are giving so much into research than why aren’t we any closer to finding the “cure” to cancer?

As you can see most of our money has gone into nonprofits through high profile fund-raising campaigns such as Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) in October, springtime daffodil, Movember and the May relay races.

Each year hundreds of millions come into these organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS), which is the world’s wealthiest non-profit, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

The Scary Facts On Where Your Money Has Gone

In 2010 the ACS was given $302,652,000.00 in charitable donations. The CEO John Seffrin made $2,401,112.00 that year.

According to James Bennett, a professor of economics at George Mason University, the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million with $69 million worth of holdings in real estate investments, office buildings and equipment in 1988. Of that money, the ACS spent only $90 million –barely a quarter of its budget on medical research and related programs. The rest covered “operating expenses,” including about 60 percent for salaries, pensions, executive benefits, and overhead.

“ The American Public is being sold a nasty bill of goods.” Dr. James Watson, Nobel Prize Winner While Serving on the National Cancer Advisory Board 1975

There are major conflicts of interest that are quite concerning. Donations from multi-billion dollar cancer drug industries, including the global giants Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pharmacia & Upjohn, are big supporters of these different “cancer awareness campaigns”.

Furthermore, executives from pharmaceutical, investment, banking, and media industries are on the boards of these non-profits. Well meaning, but mislead citizens will support seemingly important cause which, in reality, promotes enormous profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

American Cancer Society Foundation Board of Trustees (not an exhaustive list):

  • David R. Bethune, President of Lederle Laboratories, a multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American Cyanamid, which makes chemical fertilizers and herbicides. This company introduced Novatrone, an anti-cancer drug.
  • Gordon Binder, CEO of Amgen, the world’s foremost biotechnology company. As the cancer epidemic grows, sales for their drug Neupogen will continue to skyrocket.
  • George Dessert, Former CEO of CBS and famous in media circles.
  • Sumner M. Redstone, Chairman of the board, Viacom Inc. and Viacom International., a broadcasting, telecommunications, entertainment, and cable television corporation.

Of the money that goes to research, close to 100% of the research is focused on new drugs or surgeries, improving treatment that already exists and understanding the etiology of cancer. In Canada less than 2 pre cent of research dollars go to bolstering prevention and in the UK less than 3.5 per cent does.

In 2003 the NCI had a budget of  $4.6 billion, less than 1% was allocated to researching occupational cancer, which over 10% of cancers deaths have been directly linked to.

Despite the NCI’s claims that roughly one-third of all cancers are diet related, it spent just $1 million on education, media, and public outreach to prevent cancer. That’s  0.0002% of it’s total budget! They are ignoring or trivializing prevention initiatives while claiming major gains in the war on cancer.

The NCI has become what amounts to a governmental pharmaceutical company.” – Samuel Broder, Former NCI Director

When you look into what these organizations classify as “prevention” it might as well be in the “drugs and surgeries” category. Research on screening technology (that, as you will learn shortly, leads to an increase use of drugs and surgery with concerning outcomes) is what they classify as “preventative research”. Screenings to catch the cancers in their early stages is what these non-profits have invested some of the funds towards, but many experts are against this approach for many valid and thought-provoking reasons.

Experts Speak Out About Cancer Screenings and Early Diagnosis

The cancer establishment trivializes or ignores prevention initiatives while being fixated on damage control – screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

What these institutes call “prevention” is more aptly described as the “blame-the-victum” approach, emphasizing genetic predispositions sprinkled with poor lifestyle habits while downplaying the role of avoidable exposures.

On the National Cancer Institutes website under the “prevention” section, half of the articles are on natural ways to prevent cancer, and the other half of the articles are written on cancer vaccinations, drugs and cancer prevention through regular cancer screenings. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

“Screening for cancer means that tens of thousands of patients who never would have become sick are diagnosed with this disease. Once they’re diagnosed, almost everybody gets treated – and we know that treatment can cause harm.” – H. Gilbert Welch, MD, leading expert in cancer screenings and codirector of the Outcomes Group at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center

“Screening’s power to cut your risk of dying has been widely overinflated.” – Floyd Flowler Jr. PhD,  President of Boston-based nonprofit Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making

Mammography leads many women to get unnecessary treatment. And the problem is bigger than just mammography: They say that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test may do men more harm that good.” – Shannon Brownlee Author of Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer

For instance, most people don’t know that Tamoxifen, a drug for breast cancer trigger life threatening clots in the lungs.

A study published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer states that the treatment of breast cancer with Tamoxifen results in an increased risk of mortality and uterine cancer incidence. 4

Surgery for prostate cancer leaves 60 percent of men unable to have an erection. Up to 5 out of every 1000 people who get a colonoscopy have a serious complication, such as a colon perforation or major bleeding. 5

Researchers Find That 60 Precent of Men Over The Age Of 60 Have Prostate Cancer 

But wait a minute, small cancers are easier to cut out and are less likely to metastasize, right? Couldn’t these screenings save your life? Before I answer that, lets get some perspective from a cancer expert from the NIH:

“Some tumors spread extremely early. They begin metastasizing when they consist of only a few million cells, which sounds like a lot but is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence – too small to detect with most screening tests. By the time this kind of cancer is big enough to be seen on mammogram or other tests, it’s already sent it’s seeds to other part of the body.” Barnett S. Kramer, MD, Associate Director for Disease Prevention at the National Institute of Health

Many cancer screenings do an incredible job at finding cancers that would never have caused problems and could have been left alone.

This notion violates what we think we know about cancer, because most of what we know is based on the tumors that cause harm. If you think of all the different varieties of cancer as making up an iceberg, cancers that cause symptoms represent only the part of the berg above the waterline.” – Barnett S. Kramer MD, NIH

Dr. Welch found that 60 percent of men over the age of 60 have undetected prostate cancer, yet only 3 percent of deaths in men are due to prostate cancer. Screenings help us look at the asymptomatic tumors beneath the surface.

Studies of postmortem exams show that nearly 9 percent of women of all ages who die of any cause other than breast cancer had undiagnosed DCIS.  In Denmark, where mammography is not as common as in North America showed 39% of middle aged women that died of other causes had undetected breast cancer.

Although screening test have the potential to save your life, they have a much higher probability to raise false red flags leading to an unnecessary mastectomy (the removal of the breast), prostatectomy, radiation and even chemotherapy. They also create unnecessary drama for those cancers that would simply disappear.

 The Shocking Truth About How Cancer Screens Lead to More Harm And A Smaller Bank Account

Unnecessary therapies for cancer can drain your wallet and cause even more harm that good.

Many oncologists would probably tell you that they’ve had patients who suffered serious side effects, even death, from treatment that they might not have needed.” William C. Black, MD, Professor of Radiology at Dartmouth –Hitchcock Medical Center

Take 62 year old Pastor Paul. In Central Florida Pastor Paul came in our Health Center for an exam after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. As a “preventative” measure, doctors can be more aggressive at treating the cancer that comes back from a screening.

They had put Pastor Paul on chemotherapy, but even with the support of his congregation, he couldn’t afford to stay on it for much longer. I could see his health deteriorate quickly as a result of being on the chemotherapy. After just a few short weeks of being in our Health Center he had died from the side effects of the chemotherapy treatment.

The True Effectiveness of Prostate Screenings: “Prostate screens just don’t work”

If your prostate cancer is an asymptomatic form, the typical treatment approach is through an invasive therapy or even surgery. Even if you don’t need treatment, you will get it because of these prostate screenings.

With that being said, according to the ACS the Pap smear cut death rates for cervical cancer by 74 percent. No tests have come close to being as powerful.

Prostate screenings are another story… Most men that have prostate cancer would eventually go into remission. If the 60% of men over the age of 60 that have undetected prostate cancer end up testing positive in a screening, the route is chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. All which can cause more harm than good, (as you will see below) especially when only 3% end up dying from prostate cancer.

Medicare patients in Seattle were five times more likely than those in Connecticut to get PSA testing between 1988 and 1990 and were also more likely to have surgery and radiation for prostate cancer. But when researchers followed up through 1997, they found the Seattle men were just as likely to die from prostate cancer.” – Shannon Brownlee, Readers Digest The Shocking Truth About Cancer Tests

 “Prostate screening seems to make sense… if only it worked.” – Nortin M. Hadler, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Author of Worried Sick: A Prescription for Health in an Overtreated America

 In the future I will write about research that shows how a healthy lifestyle design works better than drugs and surgery for addressing prostate issues. The research behind this is powerful and exciting!

The True Effectiveness of a Mammogram: “Creates a 1.5 times greater increase in breast cancer risk!”

Mammograms also don’t offer as big a benefit as you would think.

Their effectiveness is a hotly debated topic. NIH’s Kramer says it cuts your risk of dying by 15 percent, which is a relative number. Women that are older have a greater chance of developing breast cancer. So a 60 year old who gets regular mammograms shaves her risk of dying in the next twelve years from 7 out of 1000 to 6 out of 1000. That’s where they get their 15 percent difference! Do you see how relative numbers work now? Deceiving right?

A recent study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increase breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide, PhD., and colleagues are epidemiologists in the Department of Epidemiology and Radiology at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, found that high-risk women who were exposed to low-dose mammography type radiation had a 1.5 times greater increase in breast cancer risk.

Furthermore, women exposed to this type of radiation who were under that age of 20 and had five or more exposures, had a 2.5 times great risk of developing breast cancer.

The conclusion is that any supposed benefit of early tumor detection using mammograms in high-risk women is offset by the potential risk of radiation-induced cancer.

The current research that exists that promotes the use of mammograms have been performed by conventional medical researchers supported by the very industries that financially benefit from women being diagnosed.

The True Effectiveness of a Colonoscopy: “It’s an expensive lottery ticket!”

Research hasn’t been done to see how much a colonoscopy reduces your risk of death.

The highest assessments suggest that a colonoscopy can cut the risk of death from colon cancer by as much as 60 percent. This sounds like a big number until you find out that the average risk for dying of colorectal cancer for women is 2.1 percent and for men it is 2.3 percent.

Dennis Fryback, PhD, is a former member of the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force that helps to make recommendations about cancer tests. They recommend that for people ages 50-75 have a colonoscopy every 10 years. However, Dr. Fryback has made the decision not to screen himself as he says he has no family history of it. He also understands that if you do get a colonoscopy your chance of getting colorectal cancer increases as does the risk of perforation. Plus, who wants to take laxatives and pharmaceuticals for a full day before the test?

A colonoscopy is like an expensive lottery ticket. I might get some extra time, but chances are much better that I won’t get anything.” – Dennis Fryback PhD, Expert In Medical Decision Making For The U.S. Preventative Service Task Force

“ We have come to fear dying from disease more than dying at the hands of overzealous doctors.” William C. Black, MD, Professor of Radiology at Dartmouth –Hitchcock Medical Center

Whether you want to screen or you don’t is up to you. It rests on your values and understanding of the nature of disease.

My personal belief is to focus on addressing the cause through a healthy lifestyle design, which includes removing major toxic exposures, optimizing anti-cancer nutrients and maximizing your psychology.

Imagine what the world would look like if instead of focusing on treating the effect or the symptoms, we focused on addressing the cause through lifestyle change. I believe that this concept can transform the healthcare systems of the world. On the flip side, the medical models top tool for addressing cancer is chemotherapy.

Essential Cancer Facts To Help You Understand Cancer

 Did you know that most people that have been diagnosed with cancer have had it for decades? The average person has thousands of cancer cells in their body each day. They grow and develop and if you have a strong immune system they will be killed and go away.

“On average the tumor is already 10 years old and has already spread to other parts of the body by the time a tumor is found on a mammogram.” – Journal of Serg Onc. 1997 Aug 65 (4) 248-97 

When a tumor is found in the hospital, despite the fact that it’s been there for over 10 years, the staff typically frightens the patient into immediate treatment.

They have time to think about it. It’s a slow growing disease. The truth of the matter is that the disease has been going on for 10 years before discovering it, and it’s probably going to take another 10-20 years before it kills them.” –John A. McDougall MD, Cancer Expert

Take Danielle, one of my Health Participants from Portland Oregon that use to have stage 4 cancer. She was diagnosed with breast cancer and was told that she needed a mastectomy and should go on chemotherapy.

She was paralyzed with fear and over time she learned that the cancer had metastasized to her right femur (a bone in her leg).

Instead of taking chemotherapy she focused on living a customized anti-cancer lifestyle. She learned that a cancer promoting estrogen was high within her body and that the her progesterone levels were extremely low.

She also learned that she had a high level of toxicity within her body. Labs also came back to me showing several micronutrient deficiencies that are linked to cancer. Furthermore, the food she was eating was causing inflammation in her body which increases angiogenesis and promotes tumbor growth.

These labs enabled an ultimate customized healthy lifestyle design and just recently she called me up, letting me know she was cancer free!

I didn’t “treat her” with drugs. Rather we created a customized anti-cancer lifestyle program that helped to remove damaging interferences that then enabled her body to heal itself.  

What Leading Experts Say About Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is the treatment of cancer with pharmaceutical drugs that attempt to slow, stop or kill replicating cancer cells in the body in a standardized treatment regimen. As a pesticide has resistant insects there will always be cancer cells that are resistant to all combinations of chemo treatments. Here are some of the things that leading experts are saying about chemotherapy:

“For most of today’s common solid cancers, the ones that cause 90% of cancer deaths each year, chemotherapy has never proven to do any good at all.” – Urich Abel, M.D. University of Heibelberg

Evidence has steadily accrued that (cancer therapy) is essentially a failure.” N.J. Temple, M.D. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

“We have given it our best effort for decades: billions of dollars of support, the best scientific talent available. It hasn’t paid off.” – John C. Bailar, M.D. Harvard University 1997

Survival gains for the more common forms of cancer are measured in additional months of life, not years…”  – Fortune Mag 2004

Surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy… seldom produce a cure.” – American Cancer Society (cancer facts and figures 2010)

You can not heal with poison.” Charlotte Gerson, Leader of The Gerson Institute

Remember there are worse things than death. One of them is chemotherapy.” –Charles Huggins, MD Nobel Prize Winner

Treating a tumor the conventional way is like treating an oil light that has come on in the car by removing the light in our dash after the problem has developed. We cut the cancer out, try to shrink it, or start cutting body parts. Cancer is a symptom; it’s the tip of the iceberg. The problem isn’t the cancer; it’s the environment that the cancer is growing in.

If you had a rat in your house, would you throw a grenade in the middle of it to kill the rat? Of course you wouldn’t, as your house would be severely damaged on the inside. Ideally you would like to remove the rat without damaging the house.

The cancer industry is trying to create these targeted treatments but they still have a long way to go and the promise that it won’t damage other tissues and systems within your body is close to science fiction. Everything in the body is so intricately related. You can’t affect one part of the body without affecting the whole system. Any medication one takes will always have an effect on the whole being. If you do remove the cancer, but the soil in which it grew is now more toxic because of taking the medications, do you think you would have a greater chance of re-occurrence?

Over 90% of people that have cancer and treat it will have it return. There’s not a doctor today that will not tell you that chemotherapy destroys the immune system and the body.” – Brian Clement PhD. Hippocrates Health Institute, Cancer Expert

The Cancer Experts Convincing Conclusion

Other articles I have in the “q” to write will go extensively into the ways that you can prevent and even reverse cancer. A great article to start with is the article that I wrote entitled “Toxic Beauty: Keeping us slaves to cancer“.

I wrote this article because you are being bombarded by propaganda from pharmaceutical funded nonprofits, media and billion dollar organizations. Whether you agree with what these experts say or not, I wanted to give you the other side of the story so that you could make an informed decision.

Article summary:

  • Despite the propaganda, most forms of cancer are on the rise.
  • Most non-profits allocate dismal funds to prevention.
  • Most non-profits have serious conflicts of interest.
  • Preventative screenings may not be as useful as people think, and can actually cause much more harm than good.
  • It takes dozens of years to develop cancer your body.
  • Most cancer therapy including chemotherapy and radiation have been miserable failures.
  • Cancer is the symptom of the abnormal physiology of the body due to lifestyle, the environment around the cancer along with many other factors.
  • Over 90% of people that treat cancer with traditional approaches will have the cancer return.

I’m on a mission to see this system change!

I believe in a world that is cancer free, through people living healthy lifestyle designs. I believe that the world will adopt the cause based preventative approach to healthcare. I believe in a world where people consciously create purity within their body, optimize nutrients  in their cells and strive to maximize their psychology. We aren’t victims of disease. The keys to your future are in your hand.

Even if you have cancer, a customized lifestyle approach is an essential part of your healing program! Thanks for reading this article and would love to get your comments below. What do you think of this article? What do you agree with or don’t you agree with? Thanks!

 To Ending Cancer,

 

 

 

Dr. Jones

References:

  1. Prevent Cancer Coalition 2012
  2. American Cancer Society’s company statistics 2012
  3. Cancer Research UK 2012
  4. The risk of developing uterine sarcoma after tamoxifen use. 2008
  5. The Shocking Truth About Cancer Tests 2008

DrJones.tv (http://s.tt/1pTQD)

Is Cancer Awareness a Failure?

Brian Bartholomew - Sunday, October 28, 2012
Is Cancer Awareness a Failure?
Cancer Solutions    

Gray  Like us on Facebook 

  

October is officially Cancer Control Month, during this time we honor cancer victims and survivors, raise awareness of the impact cancer has on our citizens, and underscore our commitment to battling this deadly disease. While this altruistic effort is certainly commendable,we have to ask if it is really moving us in the right direction?  

 

Science Daily, on Dec 9, 2008 projected cancer to be the number 1 killer in the world by 2012. According to the new report, the burden of cancer doubled globally between 1975 and 2000. It is estimated that it will double again by 2020 and nearly triple by 2030. This translates to far greater numbers of people living with - and dying from - the disease. The report estimates that there were some 12 million new cancer diagnoses worldwide this year, and more than seven million people will die from the disease. The projected numbers for the year 2030 are 20-26 million new diagnoses and 13-17 million deaths.

 

During the month of October, you can expect a large national campaign to secure more funding for research into the "cure." Big ads, such as the Breast Cancer 3-day's "Race For the Cure," are commercialized and adorned on radio & television. In total, this effort has raised over $2 trillion in the last 25 years, yet cancer appears worse than ever.  

 

The conventional cancer treatments, chemotherapy, radiation, & tumor inhibiting medications, have shown limited results and a host of side effects. A recent British study, reported by ABC News in Nov. 2008, found that about 1 in every 4 cancer related deaths had either been sped up or even caused by chemotherapy. The study's findings also included the discovery that 2 out of every 5 of the patients had suffered significant poisoning from the treatment.

 

Regardless of these statistics, we constantly hear about the progress we are making. However, with the ever increasing burden, I question the relative progress we have made in "curing" the world of cancer. Many statements that have been purported were clearly driven by a marketing agenda for more federal grants and private support for research into the already highly profitable business of cancer treatment.

 

In the book, Outsmart Your Cancer, Tanya Harter Pierce outlines 6 main ways in which cancer statistics are manipulated to make them look better than they are - she had obtained these findings mainly from the excellent work of Lorraine Day, MD, and Ralph W Moss, PhD.  

 

"Cure" is defined as being alive 5 years after diagnosis. This means that a person could be very sick with cancer for 5 years and 1 day, after which he or she dies, and still be declared as "cured" by chemotherapy. Isn't this simply playing with words?  Certain types of cancer and certain groups of people which exhibit poor recovery rates are simply excluded from overall statistics. This artificially raises the average "cure" rate.  

 

Easily curable cancerous and even pre-cancerous conditions are included in overall statistics. An example for the latter is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which was included in and now accounts for a significant portion of breast cancer statistics. This move artificially increases the overall recovery rate.  

 

Earlier detection is taken to mean longer survival time. This means that a person may die at the exact same point of cancer development as another person, but the former is taken to have lived longer simply by virtue of the fact that his tumor was discovered earlier. In other words, different start points are used. Isn't this merely delusional?  

 

Patients who fail to "complete" conventional treatment protocols are excluded from overall statistics. This means that if a patient prescribed a 10-course chemotherapy protocol dies after 9 sessions, he is not included as a "failure" case. Control groups, however, play by different rules. This, again, artificially raises cure rates for conventional protocols. Isn't this totally unscientific?  

 

Adjusting for "Relative Survival Rate." This is perhaps best explained by Dr Moss: "Relative survival rates take into account the 'expected mortality figures'. Put simply, this means that if a person hadn't died of cancer he might have been run over by a truck, and that must be factored into the equation." Once again, this artificially raises the success rates of conventional treatment.

 

Medical historian Hans Ruesch, "Despite the general recognition that 85 per cent of all cancers is caused by environmental influences, less than 10 per cent of the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute budget is given to environmental causes. And despite the recognition that the majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than 1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to nutrition studies."

 

It is scientific fact that everyone develops between 100 - 10,000 cancer cells as a product of metabolic processes everyday. Fortunately, we have a powerful immune system that heals and destroys these abnormal cells, allowing new healthy cells to reform. The critical question that must be asked when cancer is present is, "why is the body not healing itself?" Conventional cancer treatment wants to focus on destroying the cancer from the outside (chemo, radiation, etc.) whereas the best success rates have come from maximizing the bodies own innate healing abilities.

 

Cancer is not as mysterious as what was once thought...it is known to be caused by a toxic and/or deficient lifestyle and the cure is simply bringing purity and sufficiency back into the body on a cellular level. Nutrition plays an incredibly large role in this process.  When the body is in a balanced state of homeostasis, disease is prevented.

God's Natural Chemotherapy

Brian Bartholomew - Sunday, October 28, 2012
God's Natural Chemotherapy  
   

Gray  Like us on Facebook  by Dr. David Jockers

  

I believe deep within my spirit that God created us for incredible health & vitality and desires for us to look to nature to provide the resources for health & well-being. Our society has been trained to look first to man-made interventions and treatments.  

 

The world's most powerful cancer fighting substances are found right under our nose in the form of natural plants, herbs, & spices.Some of the most potent of these include cruciferous veggies (such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, bok choy, collards, & turnip greens among others) contain a wide array of anti-carcinogenic compounds. Here are a few of them:  

 

1. Indole-3 Carbinol: (I3C) A powerful anti-oxidant that scavenges free radicals in the body. It plays a very critical role in liver detoxification by inducing hepatic cytochrome P450 monooxygenases. This reaction affects estrogen metabolism by increasing the production of the chemoprotective estrogen 2-hydroxyestrone.  

Additionally, it has been shown that I3C inhibits aflotoxin-DNA binding and arrests the G1 growth phase of cancerous human reproductive cells. It has also shown benefit in the treatment of Systemic Lupus, an autoimmune disease related to faulty estrogen metabolism. Foods: Broccoli, cauliflower, kale, broccoli rabe, bok choy, brussel sprouts.

 

2. Isothiocyanates: (Phenethyl Isothiocyanate & Sulforaphane) Shown to induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in most cancer cells including drug-resistant leukemia cells. The p53 gene is considered the "guardian of the genome," due to its role in regulating the cell cycle and suppressing cancer formation. Increased levels of oxidative stress creates a mutation of the p53 gene which promotes cancer cell growth. Isothiocyanates have been shown to destroy mutant p53 genes.   Broccoli sprouts are considered the best source of these powerful compounds.

 

3. Lutein & Zeaxanthin: These 2 carotenoid anti-oxidants are very similar in chemistry and function. These 2 powerfully reduce oxidative stress, inhibit cancer cell formation, and induce cancer cell apoptosis. These substances are found in abundance in kale, spinach, brussel sprouts, & broccoli.  

Dr. David's Action Steps:

  1. Include a lot of cruciferous vegetables in your diet everyday.
  2. Sprouts are the most nutrient dense. Use broccoli sprouts regularly.
  3. Lightly steam these veggies to break down fibrous outer shell.
  4. Marinate your veggies in apple cider vinegar to soften them and maintain all essential nutrients in their raw form.
  5. Ferment them to make things like Sauerkraut & Kimchi
  6. Use Red cabbage inner leaves as a potato chip replacement for healthy dips like guacamole and amasai ranch dressing.
  7. Make or purchase kale chips
  8. Throw kale, collards and other greens in your protein shakes or as a greens shake
  9. Use organic supergreen powders that concentrate these powerful nutrients
  10. Terminal cancer or metastatic patient's should focus mostly on juicing these to maximize nutrient absorption while limiting digestive energy & stress.

Cancer Forbidden Cures Video

Brian Bartholomew - Sunday, October 07, 2012

Foods That Fight Free Radicals and Cancer

Brian Bartholomew - Monday, September 03, 2012

Diet and Cancer Research e-mail this page

The Antioxidant Defenses

Oxygen is essential to life. But, as oxygen is used in the body, some of the oxygen molecules become very unstable. These unstable oxygen molecules, called free radicals, can attack cell membranes and even damage the DNA (genetic code) in the nucleus of the cell. Damage to DNA is the beginning of cancer.

Fortunately, the foods we eat can help protect our bodies. Antioxidants, including vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, selenium, and others, can neutralize the damaging effects of oxygen. These powerful, natural chemicals come to us in vegetables, fruits, grains, and beans (see table below). People who include fruits and vegetables in their daily diets have lower rates of many forms of cancer.

Smokers have provided dramatic demonstrations of the power of vegetables and fruits. A 55-year-old male smoker whose diet is low in vitamin C has a one-in-four risk of dying of lung cancer in the next 25 years. But if the smoker has a high intake of vitamin C, either through diet or supplements, his risk drops to 7 percent.7 Effects of antioxidants have even been seen in childhood. When children with brain tumors were studied, it was found that their mothers consumed less vitamin C during pregnancy, compared to other women.8

Antioxidants in Foods (in mg)

Source

Vit C

B-
carotene

Vit E

Apple (1 medium)

8

0.04

0.44

Broccoli

116

1.30

1.32

Brown rice

0

0.00

4.00

Brussels sprouts

96

0.67

1.33

Carrot (1 medium)

7

12.00

0.28

Cauliflower

54

0.01

0.05

Chick peas

2

0.02

0.57

Corn

10

0.22

0.15

Grapefruit (pink, 1/2)

47

0.19

0.31

Navy beans

2

0.00

4.10

Orange (1 medium)

75

0.16

0.31





Pineapple

24

0.02

0.16





Fresh spinach

16

2.30

0.57

Strawberries

84

0.02

0.23

Sweet potato (1 medium with skin)

28

15.00

0.32

Serving sizes are one-cup (8 oz.) except as otherwise noted.

Sources: Pennington JAT. Bowes and Church's Food Values of Portions Commonly Used. New York, Lippincot, 1998. Messina M, Messina V. The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets. Gaithersburg (Md.), Aspen, 1996. USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 12, last updated April 7, 1999.

Even with vegetables and fruits in the diet, damage to the cells' DNA will occasionally occur, so the body has built-in repair machinery. Fixing DNA requires a B vitamin called folic acid, which is found in dark green leafy vegetables, fruits, peas, and beans. The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of folic acid for adult women is 200 micrograms per day and increases to 400 micrograms per day for pregnant women. The RDA for adult men is 180 micrograms per day.9 As the table below shows, beans and vegetables are rich in folic acid.

Folic Acid in Foods (micrograms per 1-cup cooked servings)

Asparagus

262

  Kidney beans

229

Vegetarian baked beans

61

Lentils

358

Black beans

256

Lima beans

156

Black-eyed peas

254

Navy beans

255

Broccoli

78

Pinto beans

294

Brussels Sprouts

94

Soybeans

93

Chick peas

282

Spinach

262

Great northern beans

181

Source: Pennington JAT. Bowes and Church's Food Values of Portions Commonly Used. New York, Lippincott, 1998.

We are all exposed to cancer-causing chemicals, whether we like it or not. Some people are smokers, and, of course, quitting smoking is a vital step for them. But all of us are exposed to chemicals in the air, in water, in food, and in household products, not to mention the carcinogens produced within our bodies as a part of our metabolic processes. While trying to minimize our exposure to carcinogens, we can also shore up our defenses against these assaults by including generous amounts of vegetables and fruits in our diet. A plant-based diet rich in vegetables, fruits, legumes, and unprocessed cereals is associated with a decreased risk of cancer.10