Created with Sketch.
5 minutes | Mar 18, 2013
Cancer Uncensored on The Ed Tyll Show
I would like to say a huge thank you to The Ed Tyll Show for putting together a segment for Cancer Uncensored on Ed’s internet talk radio show. Have a listen: . Raising awareness of cancer prevention is so important, so we hope you will be kind enough to support us by telling your friends about this site and by sharing us using the links below:The post Cancer Uncensored on The Ed Tyll Show first appeared on Cancer Uncensored.com.
5 minutes | Feb 17, 2013
Our bodies are made up of almost 70% water. Healthy blood pH is around 7.35 to 7.45, which is slightly alkaline. However, many of the foods we eat and many of the environmental factors we are exposed to are acidic. Therefore, we need alkaline substances in our diet to help us balance the pH of our bodies. In the absence of balance, the body draws calcium from our teeth and bones to neutralise the acid in our blood. This is one of the reasons why sugar rots your teeth. It also rots your bones! Even if your fizzy drinks were put straight into your stomach via a tube, you would still get tooth decay, because in order to neutralise the carbonic acid, your body would draw the calcium from your teeth. We simply do not have enough calcium reserves to cope with it all, which is why many elderly suffer from osteoporosis. Prescription drugs, smoking, meat, dairy, some nuts, sugar and wheat all increase the acidity of your body. A significant problem with this is that cancer thrives in an acidic environment. So not only should we avoid carbonated drinks, we should actively try to repair the pH balance by drinking alkaline water. You can buy machines that you can hook up to your kitchen tap so that it… filters the water, (to remove heavy metals, bacteria, pesticides and various other toxins), adds minerals to it, processes it to make it a pH of 8 or greater, adding hydrogen (which easily donates its electrons), and reduces the molecule cluster size, (making it more easily absorbable for better hydration). We know that having a negative charge, (from electrons), is important to the membranes of our cells, because they use the variation in charge, (from the positively charged nucleus to the negatively charged exterior of the cell), to move waste out of the cell and to bring nutrition and oxygen in. Therefore, not only do we make our body more hostile to cancer by consuming more alkaline substances, but the extra electrons available from alkaline water help to restore the charge to our cell membranes. Cancer cells have a negative charge on their cell membranes that is three times lower than healthy cells. Consuming alkaline water also helps to destroy free radicals in your bloodstream before they have chance to damage your cells. This makes alkaline water somewhat of an antioxidant. Interestingly, you can see some videos of the before and after effects of alkaline water on YouTube. In particular videos of the insides of people’s colons after using this water. It is amazing what water can do for your health. They even use alkaline water to kill E. coli and salmonella in chicken processing plants. There are several places in the world that people flock to for miraculous healing water, such as the springs of Lourdes in France, the caves of Nordenau in Germany, the wells of Tlacote in Mexico and more. Scientific research conducted by Dr Shirahata of Kyushu University in Japan, shows that these “miraculous” sources of water contain as much as 200 to 300 times more hydrogen than normal tap water. I use a KeoSan Alkaline Hydrogen Water Filtration System because it infuses tap water with abundant hydrogen and it tastes great. I couldn’t be without it. Further research has also been conducted into the energetic levels of water. It appears that water has some form of energetic memory. Still and dead water has larger clusters of molecules and low energy. But if the water is vortexed, or falls down a waterfall, it ends up with smaller clusters of molecules and greater levels of energy in it. Interestingly, this makes it a better solvent, so it can remove waste better or transport nutrients more effectively. If you shake a drink that has settled, it mixes up again. This is the same principle. Not only does the KeoSan machine filter out unwanted impurities, re-mineralise and alkalinise the water, but it also vortexes it to help it to form hexagonal clusters of energised water that are better absorbed. There are other brands out there, but for less than £200 or $300, this brand seemed excellent value for money, considering its unique features.The post Alkaline Water first appeared on Cancer Uncensored.com.
12 minutes | Feb 2, 2013
Dietary and intravenous vitamin C or ascorbic acid
Vitamin C is found in numerous fruits and vegetables and is vital for our survival. The richest sources include blackcurrants, guava, red peppers, oranges and other citrus fruit, papaya, strawberries, tomatoes, broccoli, potatoes and more. On top of being an excellent antioxidant, vitamin C is used in the production of collagen (required for skin, bone, muscle, tendons, ligaments and blood vessels). It is also required in the production of some of your neurotransmitters and the synthesis of carnitine, which helps convert fat into energy in your cells. Vitamin C is also needed to convert cholesterol into bile acid. As with many other vitamins and minerals, there is a recommended daily allowance of vitamin C. Current dietary recommended daily allowances, (RDAs), for vitamins and minerals, relate to the bare minimum quantities necessary to prevent deficiency diseases, such as scurvy. The RDAs are not set at what is required for optimum health. That is a big difference. Neil Riordan at the Riordan Clinic, Arizona noted that 46 per cent of breast cancer sufferers are vitamin C deficient, some even to the point of scurvy (British Journal of Cancer Vol 84, II). It is theorised that during the course of our evolution, we lost one of the 4 enzymes necessary to manufacture vitamin C within our own bodies, so we must consume it as part of our diet. Animals, (except for guinea pigs), are able to make their own. Interestingly, if you look at the amount of vitamin C per kg of body weight across all animals, it is very similar, from a mouse to an elephant. It equates to what would be around a 1500mg daily dose for an adult human. Yet the UK RDA for vitamin C in people is only set at 60mg, or 1/25th of the level that every other mammal on this planet has in their bodies. The US RDA is set at 75mg for men and 90mg for women. More shockingly, these levels were determined by the National Institute of Health after just 2 studies involving only 7 and 15 participants respectively! I find it disgusting that they can dictate the safe daily consumption of a vital nutrient for 300 million people, (and all of their future offspring), based upon data from just 22 people! A case in point is that 35% of our population require more vitamin C than usual due to the depleting effects of smoking, the contraceptive pill, pregnancy, diabetes and using aspirin or numerous other drugs. Is it any wonder that our immune systems fail and that our arteries become decreasingly elastic from reducing levels of collagen and elastin, because you need vitamin C in order to make them. You really cannot take it for granted that mainstream science has all the answers. The bogus RDAs issued by the NIH have probably cost millions of lives. An epidemiological study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, by the NIH in the year 2000, showed that adults whose blood plasma concentrations exceeded the 73.8 micromole level [equivalent to a 500-1000mg daily dose] experienced a 57 percent reduced risk of dying from any cause and a 62 percent reduced relative risk of dying of cancer when compared to adults who consumed low amounts of vitamin C (28 micromole) [equivalent to the RDA]. Have they changed the RDA for vitamin C in light of this research? No. Another study, published in the journal Epidemiology in 1998, demonstrated that for every 500 microgram increase in blood serum level of vitamin C, an 11 percent reduction in coronary heart disease and stroke prevalence could be anticipated. A firm advocate of a higher vitamin C RDA, Dr. Hickey, estimates that 500mg of vitamin C, taken orally in 5 divided doses every three waking hours daily, (2500mg total per day), could reduce the cardiovascular mortality risk by 55 percent compared with people consuming low doses of vitamin C. According to the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 1995, eight different double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and six non-placebo controlled clinical trials have confirmed the safety of vitamin C, where up to 10,000mg of vitamin C was consumed daily for up to 3 years. Just take a look at the research on the impact of 2000 to 2500mg daily vitamin C: The reduction of, and delay of, forming cataracts (J Clinical Epidemiology 52: 1207-11, 1999; Am J Clin Nutrition 66: 911-16, 1997) Reduction in the symptoms of arthritis (Arthritis Rheumatism 39: 648-56, 1996) People getting colds less often and for a shorter duration (Advances Therapy 19: 151-59, 2002) Smokers living longer, with less symptoms (J Am College Nutrition 22: 372-78, 2003) Rates of gall bladder disease dropping by 25% (J Clinical Epidemiology 51: 257-65, 1998) 2.68 times less calcification of arteries (American Journal of Epidemiology, 2004) The risk of angina in adults who consume high levels of alcohol cut by half (Ann Epidemiology. 9: 358-65, 1999) A 750mg daily dose of vitamin C could increase male life-span by 6 years (Epidemiology 3: 194-202, 1992) But these levels are very difficult to achieve with diet alone. So in order to have the raw building blocks necessary for health, and to act as an antioxidant, vitamin C supplementation should be considered a necessity. In the past, high doses of vitamin C have been shown in studies to eliminate the risk of cot death, reverse heart disease, destroy certain viruses, and now it has been strongly linked with killing cancer cells, especially if given intravenously. But the integration of Vitamin C into cancer treatment has not been at all smooth, despite the compelling evidence. Perhaps this is because it is very cheap to produce, not patentable and hard to monetise. So just like many other “alternative” medicines, the cancer establishment has resisted it ferociously. According to CANCERactive, a UK holistic cancer charity, “In 1974, Cameron and Campbell took 50 terminal cancer patients and gave them 10 grams intravenously of sodium ascorbate (a form of vitamin C). All had been given less than three months to live. Half survived 361 days on average with five people surviving an average of 610 days. They requested that the National Cancer Institute conduct proper clinical trials – a double blind study. For some reason this was denied. So Linus Pauling and Cameron repeated the experiment with 100 terminal cancer patients, comparing them with control groups of 1000 people in all. Whilst all the 1000 control group died, 18 of the group receiving vitamin C survived, and five of these appeared to overcome the disease. In 1978, Pauling and Cameron repeated this in a second study, this time taking nine control groups each with similar cancers to the test group. As in the previous tests, the patients taking intravenous vitamin C had renewed vigour and energy and their quality of life improved. Whilst all of the control group died, the vitamin C group lived 300 days on average and five patients survived for 16 months.” As a result of these studies, Ewan Cameron and the two-time Nobel Prize winner, Linus Pauling, concluded that intravenous vitamin C could significantly increase the cancer patient’s life-span. Three subsequent studies, which supposedly replicated their work did not get the same results and were often used to discredit their findings. Further investigation revealed that the studies used oral doses of vitamin C and not intravenous doses. This is a blatant error, given that for every 1g of vitamin C taken orally, only 7% of it typically makes it into your bloodstream. Although now, we have a new liquid form of vitamin C, called liposomal vitamin C, which can enable up to 91% of it to be absorbed! A second issue was that Pauling had noted that megadoses of vitamin C did not have anywhere near the same impact upon patients who had previously had chemotherapy. Therefore, when the Mayo clinic replicated the study with 60 patients, where 52 had received chemotherapy, it was no wonder that they did not get the same impressive results. Unfortunately, such contradictory studies detracted from the message that vitamin C could be highly beneficial in the treatment of cancer. Given the inability of the body to absorb dietary vitamin C efficiently, Linus Pauling later advocated oral consumption of vitamin C in doses as high as 3 to 6g per day for adults. This is the same as 3000 to 6000mg. Most people can easily tolerate upwards of 4000mg spread over the day without suffering loose stools from excessive vitamin C intake. Whilst I would not suggest a dose this high, it is important to realise that vitamin C in your bloodstream only has a half life of around 30 minutes. This means that after 30 minutes, the level of vitamin C in your bloodstream drops in half. In order to counteract this, dividing your vitamin C intake throughout the day is a wise precaution, along with using timed release vitamin tablets. In addition, co-factors like bioflavinoids increase the effectiveness of vitamin C, so getting your vitamin C from fruit and vegetables, or a supplement which also includes them is wise. The 1000mg vitamin C tablets I take also contain citrus bioflavinoids and are designed to release over the course of 6 hours. Alternatively, you could eat an orange when you take your tablets. A gentle word of warning though. If you do consider taking higher doses of vitamin C, you should also increase your magnesium intake to decrease the small possibility of kidney stones. This possibility has largely been debunked, but the magnesium may act as a safeguard just in case. For more information on vitamin supplements, visit our recommended products page. Subsequent studies have helped to reinforce the dramatic cancer prevention qualities of vitamin C. Higher levels of blood vitamin C reduce cancer risk for breast, cervix, colon, rectum, mouth, lung, prostate, stomach and oesophagus. But there have been fears that the FDA are taking steps to ban the intravenous use of vitamin C, even though it is an acknowledged burn treatment in many countries, including the US. Fortunately, the Center for New Medicine in Irvine, California, has FDA approval to treat cancer patients with vitamin C in trials, so hopefully the resulting published data will stimulate the wider use of this treatment. At the center, they are using intravenous high dose vitamin C, then enhancing the effect by putting people in a hyperbaric chamber. This means that when the tumour absorbs the vitamin C and produces hydrogen peroxide, the pressure prevents it from actually processing the hydrogen peroxide, which poisons the mechanisms within the cancer cells, triggering programmed cell death. This means that the vitamin C is able to have an anti-cancer effect whilst simultaneously having an immune system stimulating effect. “Amazingly, vitamin C has actually already been documented in the medical literature to have regularly and consistently cured both acute polio and acute hepatitis, two viral diseases still considered by modern medicine to be incurable.” – Thomas E. Levy, M.D., JD The post Dietary and intravenous vitamin C or ascorbic acid first appeared on Cancer Uncensored.com.
20 minutes | Jan 19, 2013
Modern Cancer Treatment and Its Limitations
In many parts of the Western world, due to European directives and federal law, the only legally accepted cancer treatment protocols involve surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy. “Why would a patient swallow a poison because he is ill, or take that which would make a well man sick?” – L.F Kebler, M.D. Does this mean that these are the only ways of treating cancer? No. But to offer anything else, your Doctor would risk losing their medical license, substantial fines and in the US, even a prison sentence. In the late 1970s, after studying the policies, activities, and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organisations whose survival depended on the state of no cure. They wrote, “a solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested. Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost consistently.” Indeed, many people around the world consider that they have been “cured” by therapies which have been “blacklisted” by the major cancer institutions and the medical community at large. The individual Doctors are not necessarily to blame, but the system has overridden good conscience and common sense. According to Dr Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, M.D, “we, as doctors, are really 007 agents of the pharmaceutical industry. We are totally blind and ignorant that the pharmaceutical industry has hijacked medicine. We learn a couple of years of physiology, but as soon as we go on the clinical side we are asked to forget those and begin to learn pharmacology, in order to treat symptoms rather than understand the primary cause of the health problem”. This view is apparently shared by many Doctors, including Lorraine Day MD (former Chief Orthopaedic Surgeon, San Francisco hospital), but they are powerless to change the system. She explained, “we doctors are taught in our medical training that virtually 80% of disease has no known cause. We are not taught to treat the underlying cause of disease, we are only taught to treat the symptoms. This does not get a person well!” Dr Fritz Schellander explained that “Every now and again there are new drugs introduced. There is a great stir – but actually it only adds a matter of weeks or months to life expectancy. Until recently there hasn’t been a single study that could conclusively show that radiotherapy to the breast has any effect on survival and yet we apply it almost routinely to often very young patients. Many patients would not choose chemotherapy and radiotherapy if they knew the real facts, the real scientific evidence. A study has been reported which claims that nearly 70% of oncologists would not opt for chemotherapy, if their turn came.” Part of the way the stranglehold has been maintained is the way in which the success rate of mainstream treatments are reported. The significant difference is between relative success rates and absolute success rates. Firstly, let me define success rate. In the cancer research industry, the closest thing you get to a “cure” is a five-year survival. So if you survive five years and a day, you were a “success”. Cancer is the only disease where you can die of the condition you were “successfully” treated for. It sounds ludicrous, but this has enabled the cancer industry to massage statistics. In the same vein, early detection has increased so-called survival rates, because by detecting the disease earlier, it isn’t necessarily that the patient will live longer overall, but they are more likely to survive five years from diagnosis. What many people do not realise, is that their tumour may have taken as long as 10 years to develop to the extent where it was noticeable. Therefore, much of the improvements in success rate of cancer treatment is down to the way the statistics are handled, as opposed to the actual effectiveness of the treatment. The difference between relative success rates and absolute success rates is even more important. Imagine you had a cancer treatment, where 2 more people out of every 100 people would survive five years after receiving it (as opposed to no treatment at all). If you now develop a new cancer treatment, such as a different variation of chemotherapy, if it now saves 3 additional people out of every 100, it has a relative success rate of 50%. This is because it “cures” 50% more people than the previous methodology. However, if you were to express the data as an absolute success rate, you would say that the absolute success rate of that treatment was 3%. i.e. 3 out of every 100 people. Just to clarify, that does not mean only 3% of the people survive, it means that 3% MORE people survive than if offered no treatment at all. Look how much easier it is to justify putting somebody through chemotherapy and radiotherapy when you can talk about a 50% relative success rate, rather than a 3% absolute success rate of the treatment. A study of every randomised controlled clinical trial of chemotherapy performed in the US, (from 1990 to 2004), was conducted and published under the title “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies”. The results showed the following cancer “cure” statistics attributable to chemotherapy – based upon absolute success rates: Pancreas 0% Soft Tissue Sarcoma 0% Melanoma 0% Uterus 0% Prostate 0% Bladder 0% Kidney 0% Unknown Primary Site 0% Multiple Myeloma 0% Stomach 0.7% Colon 1% Breast 1.4% Head and neck 1.9% Lung 2% Rectum 3.4% Brain 3.7% Oesophagus 4.9% Ovary 8.9% Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 10.5% Cervix 12% Testes 37.7% Hodgkin’s Disease 40.3% Testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease, which both appear to be quite responsive to chemotherapy, only represent 2% of the total number of cancers. When you strip away the relative success rates, modern chemotherapy, (which can destroy your immune system, and rob you of your quality of life without giving you any more time), leaves a lot to be desired. “In oncology we have the problem that progress has been very, very slow and we are still living with the paradox of treating cancers with carcinogenic agents! This feels completely wrong to me!” – Dr Fritz Schellander The overall average was a 2.1% improvement in five-year survival rate compared with not using chemotherapy at all. The same process, when applied to Australian data resulted in a 2.4% improvement in five-year survival rate. Again, just to clarify, it didn’t mean that only 2.1% of Americans survived cancer, it just meant that chemotherapy only contributed to an additional 2.1% people having a five-year survival rate. It is no wonder that the American Cancer Society stated “Surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy seldom produce a cure” in their “Cancer facts and figures 2007” literature. So 2.1% more of the US patients survived for 5 years when given chemotherapy. But for the 97.9% of patients who did not get an increase in five-year survival rate, let us look at the price they paid for the attempt – the side effects of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy include: Abnormal ECG’s, Abdominal Cramps, Anemia, Arterial Damage, Bleeding Sores, Bleeding Ulcers, Blood Clotting, Bone Marrow Suppression, Brain Shrinking, Chromosomal Lesions, Chronic Radiation Proctitis, Constipation, Cumulative Toxicity, Cystitis, Deafness, Decreased White Cell Count, Dehydration [severe], Destroys linings of intestines, Destroys Mucous Membranes, Destroys Skin, Diarrhea [severe], Difficulty Absorbing Food, Dizziness, Endometriosis, Flu Symptoms, Gastrointestinal Bleeding, Hair Loss, Heart Disease, Hematological Problems, Hyper Sensitivity Reactions, Hypertension, Immune System Damage, Impaired Concentration, Impaired Eye Sight, Impaired Hearing, Impaired Language Skills, Impaired Memory, Impotence, Increased Infections, Joint Pain, Kidney Damage, Leucopenia, Liver Fibrosis, Liver Lesions, Loss of Appetite, Loss of Libido, Loss of Nerve Function, Loss of Taste, Lung Damage, Lymph edema, Malnutrition, Nausea, Necrosis, Neurological Damage, Neuropathy, Neutropenia, Nerve Damage, Numbness, Oral Ulcers, Permanent Disabilities, Psychological Distress, Radiation Burns, Radiation poisoning, Renal Dysfunction, Sexual Dysfunction, Soreness of Gums and Throat, Sterility, Stroke, Sudden Menopause, Suicide, Ulceration, Urinary Bleeding, Vascular Damage, Vomiting [severe], Weakness, Weight Loss, and TOXIC DEATH! Was it really worth it? Especially when you look at Doctors such as Dr Joseph Issels in Germany, who was able to get a 24% success rate from over 16,000 cases over a 40 year period using alternative therapies, even after chemotherapy and radiotherapy had done their damage. Or a 22% 5-year success rate for “incurable” forms of brain cancer achieved by Dr Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. in Texas, using his revolutionary Antineoplastons treatment. Diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma had never before been cured in any scientifically controlled clinical trial in the history of medicine. Now, Dr Burzynski has “cured” dozens of patients as part of his FDA approved clinical trials – trials using treatment methods outside of the mainstream Western cancer treatment protocols. This is after the FDA spent 10 years and $60 million of tax payer’s money trying to shut him down! As I mentioned in the introduction of my book, Cancer Uncensored, I pull no punches. This data is shocking and will feel contradictory to what we have been spoon-fed by the Cancer research organisations who are forever pushing the “cancer cure just around the corner” mentality, even whilst they throw more money at methodologies that have not improved survival rates for decades. How on earth have the medical and cancer research communities been able to keep the fact that chemotherapy barely works under wraps? Is a 2.1% improvement worth hundreds of billions of dollars in cancer research conducted over decades, when 85% of cancer is preventable in the first place? If we had focused on prevention all those years ago, most of the cancer patients today would never be in the position to even need treatment. In a recent patent application by the US government, (when they attempted to patent Dr Burzynski’s antineoplastons – which were already patented!), the US government even admitted, “Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease.” In a German study of elderly breast cancer patients (80 years old and older), where half received treatment involving chemotherapy and the other half received no treatment at all, the untreated group lived an average of 11 months longer. An article on www.naturalsociety.com says it all… “Cancer drugs, pushed by many drug companies as the only ‘scientific’ method of combating cancer alongside chemotherapy, have been found to actually make cancer worse and kill patients more quickly. The findings come after research was conducted on the cancer drugs at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Sold at a premium price to cancer sufferers, it turns out these drugs are not only ineffective but highly dangerous. Something known as anti-angiogenesis is the primary function behind many such widely-used cancer drugs that were analyzed in the study. Researchers examined drugs such as imatanib (a leukemia drug that goes by the brand name Gleevec) and sunitinib (a drug for gastrointestinal tumors — brand name Sutent), finding that these drugs may initially reduce tumor size but afterwards cause tumors to ‘metastasize’ aggressively. This means that the tumors come back much stronger and grow much larger than their original size. As a result, patients develop life-threatening tumors that oftentimes kill patients more quickly as a result of taking the drug. When study researchers induced anti-angiogenesis in mice, there was an initial 30% decrease in the volume of the tumor over 25 days. Afterwards, however, the tumors that had metastasized to the lungs tripled. Researchers published the findings in the January 17 issue of Cancer Cell, with study authors shocked by the findings. “Whatever manipulations we’re doing to tumors can inadvertently do something to increase the tumor numbers to become more metastatic, which is what kills patients at the end of the day,” said study author Dr. Raghu Kalluri. It is clear that these cancer drugs are virtually ineffective at treating cancer, even killing patients who may have otherwise survived. Of course a number of natural anti-cancer substances do exist that have been found to be largely effective in reducing tumor size and most importantly combating the onset of cancer. Perhaps the most amazing anti-cancer substance for your health is high quality turmeric. Turmeric has been found to reduce tumors by an astounding 81% in recent cancer research. And contrary to cancer drugs, turmeric does not come loaded with deadly side effects. Quite the opposite, turmeric instead comes with beneficial properties that can prevent your risk of disease and positively affect over 560 conditions. Vitamin D is another essential anti-cancer nutrient. Amazingly, vitamin D is much more effective than pharmaceutical drugs at fighting cancer, and is virtually a free nutrient. Instead of paying a premium price for deadly cancer drugs, your vitamin D levels can be significantly improved by soaking up some sunlight. It is important to receive a blood test to ensure you are within the optimal vitamin D level range. The correct test you should receive is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D. The optimal range is 50-70 ng/ml, though if you are fighting cancer or heart disease it is 70-100 ng/ml.” In a further article, published on www.activistpost.com, it was highlighted that chemotherapy can make cancer far worse, due to its damaging effects on healthy surrounding tissues… “A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient, accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery. While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment. Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’. Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy for years as the only option available to cancer patients. The news comes after it was previously revealed by similarly breaking research that expensive cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse. The cancer drugs were found to make tumors ‘metastasize’ and grow massively in size after consumption. As a result, the drugs killed the patients more quickly. Known as WNT16B, scientists who performed the research say that this protein created from chemo treatment boosts cancer cell survival and is the reason that chemotherapy actually ends lives more quickly. Co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle explains: “WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy.” The team then complemented the statement with a word of their own: “Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics.” Meanwhile, dirt cheap substances like turmeric and ginger have consistently been found to effectively shrink tumors and combat the spread of cancer. In a review of 11 studies, it was found that turmeric use reduced brain tumor size by a shocking 81%. Further research has also shown that turmeric is capable of halting cancer cell growth altogether. One woman recently hit the mainstream headlines by revealing her victory against cancer with the principal spice used being turmeric. This accidental finding reached by scientists further shows the lack of real science behind many ‘old paradigm’ treatments, despite what many health officials would like you to believe. The truth of the matter is that natural alternatives do not even receive nearly as much funding as pharmaceutical drugs and medical interventions because there’s simply no room for profit. If everyone was using turmeric and vitamin D for cancer (better yet, cancer prevention), major drug companies would lose out.” It makes grim reading when you know that the main institutions take decades to change their strategies. But it would be entirely irresponsible of me to recommend, or dissuade you from engaging in any particular course of treatment. It is between you and your doctor to decide what is appropriate for you, but I would ask you to question your doctor about the absolute success rate of his or her proposed course of treatment, and whether it is wise to engage in a treatment that deteriorates, if not destroys, your immune system and quality of life. If your Doctor cannot give you accurate absolute statistics, or will not support your choices, perhaps you should find a different Doctor? The post Modern Cancer Treatment and Its Limitations first appeared on Cancer Uncensored.com.
3 minutes | Dec 17, 2012
Why Buy Cancer Uncensored?
1 in 3 of us will be diagnosed with cancer, yet 85% of cancer is preventable. Discover how… with the book, Cancer Uncensored. Countless scientific peer-reviewed studies have shown that various substances in food can kill cancer cells and inhibit tumour growth. You need to know about these compounds, because you can add them to your diet TODAY! For example, in 11 different studies, Curcumin in Turmeric has been shown to decrease tumour size by an average of 81% with no side effects! If you don’t like curry, you can get capsules! In another study, an extract from apples was used in the diet of rats that were genetically pre-programmed to get the most deadly form of breast cancer, adenocarcinoma. In the low dose group, 57% got cancer, in the medium dose group, 50% got cancer, but in the high dose group only 23% got cancer. These rats were genetically predisposed to get cancer. It was supposed to be inevitable, yet their diet prevented it! Another study, published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2008, highlighted that increasing alpha-tocopherol (a form of vitamin E) consumption to 7.73mg per day or greater resulted in a 34 to 53% reduction in lung cancer risk. Vitamin E costs pennies a day. A handful of almonds has 26mg, and has also been shown to suppress hunger urges to help you lose weight! … and the list goes on! These are simple things ANYONE can add to their diet. As a society, we have forgotten the wonderful healing qualities of nature. Amazingly, only 2% of cancer research is spent on prevention, with less than 0.5% spent on researching compounds in food. Don’t rely on anyone else. Learn what we already know, now! Cancer Uncensored provides a whole A to Z list of superfoods that influence your risk of cancer, or else inhibits cancer growth. These foods are simple, everyday foods that you can easily add to your diet. It also covers the nasty additives in foods that have been shown to increase cancer risk, so you can avoid them! For example, in one 2009 study, mice with lung cancer were fed a diet containing the inorganic phosphates we use as a preservative in processed food. At levels consistent with a Western diet, the lung cancer tumours were significantly greater in size than the control group. Lung cancer is the biggest killer of all cancers, yet how many Oncologists tell their lung cancer patients to avoid phosphate preservatives in food? I suspect none. EVERYBODY should read Cancer Uncensored, because it could save or prolong millions of lives. Only 23% of Americans eat their recommended 5 portions of fruit or vegetables per day. Cancer Uncensored makes it easy. If you have a family history, you CAN change your level of risk. If you have already been diagnosed, you NEED Cancer Uncensored. Get the book and tell your friends – a 1 in 3 probability of cancer is unacceptable. Fight back with Cancer Uncensored.The post Why Buy Cancer Uncensored? first appeared on Cancer Uncensored.com.
9 minutes | Nov 17, 2012
What is Cancer?
The human body is made up of many different types of cells, each contributing to different tissues and organs. They all divide and multiply in a controlled manner to repair damage and to grow. Cancer is a condition whereby this process of growth and repair goes wrong in a cell, or group of cells, and they continue to grow and divide abnormally – even when there is no need for them to do so. If cells continue to divide when new cells are not needed, a cluster of tissue (or lump) forms called a tumour or primary growth. This can be benign (non-cancerous) or malignant (cancerous). Your Doctor is able to tell whether a tumour is benign or malignant by examining a small sample of cells under a microscope. This is called a biopsy. Benign tumours are not cancerous and are not able to spread to other parts of the body. They usually don’t need treatment, but if they do, they can be removed by simple surgery. Malignant tumours are cancerous. This means that they can invade nearby parts of the body and may stop the cells there from working properly. Cells from malignant tumours can also break away and travel to other parts of the body via the lymphatic system or bloodstream, where they settle and form another tumour. These are called secondary growths, or metastases. Due to the fact that this abnormal cell growth can affect virtually any type of cell in the body, there are over 200 kinds of cancer, each with different techniques to diagnose them and with different methods of treating them. Many cancers can be successfully treated if detected early enough, so it is important to seek medical advice if you notice any persistent changes in your health. If you ignore the symptoms and it turns out to be cancer, the delay could mean that the cancer has spread and become less easy to treat. Every cancer has its own signs and symptoms, but these are the most important to look out for: A lump anywhere in your body, e.g. breast or testicle. A change in a skin mole. A sore that does not heal. A persistent cough or hoarseness. Persistent indigestion or difficulty swallowing. Coughing up or vomiting blood. Change in normal bowel habit, such as persistent diarrhoea or constipation. Any bleeding in the urine or bowel motions and any abnormal vaginal bleeding. Unexplained weight loss. Unexplained loss of appetite. Having one of these symptoms does not necessarily mean that you have cancer, but you should see your doctor immediately so that the situation can be fully assessed. Visit our Early Detection section or Cancer Information section for more details on specific cancers.The post What is Cancer? first appeared on Cancer Uncensored.com.
Terms of Service
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
© Stitcher 2022