- View All News
- March 2012
- December 2010
- September 2010
- May 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
Cancer Victors News
January 24, 2008
The adrenal glands, which sit on the kidneys, produce epinephrine, also known as adrenaline. The body uses this hormone like a power tool at times of stress, but when stress is prolonged, the adrenals continue to pump out the hormone and levels remain elevated. Wondering how the excess epinephrine affects cancer cells, and by what process, researchers exposed breast and prostate cancer cells to the hormone in the lab. What's supposed to happen in the body, normally, is that a protein with the peculiar name of "BAD" helps trigger naturally occurring cell death, called apoptosis -- but when epinephrine comes into contact with BAD, as the researchers discovered, it activates enzymes that inactivate BAD and the cells continue to grow.
This might be one way high stress connects to cancer... unchecked by BAD, the cancerous cells continue on their destructive path. This discovery could help explain a previous Canadian study's finding that men who had taken beta blocker drugs for hypertension for at least four years had an 18% lower risk of developing prostate cancer... since beta blockers block the effects of epinephrine. Also, even more recently, another study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, demonstrated that in patients with metastatic breast cancer, stressful or traumatic life events reduced the "median disease-free interval" to 30 months from 62.
INSIGHTS FROM THE RESEARCH TEAM
George Kulik, PhD, was one of the study's lead authors. When I called him he told me that not all types of cancer cells respond this way to stress hormones, so one priority is identifying which ones do. One reason past studies on stress and cancer have not been able to show a relationship could be because not all cancers are shown to react to epinephrine and Dr. Kulik suspects only 5% to 10% may be affected by the hormone. Dr. Kulik explained that in a large population study, these would be "washed out" in the overall findings. But once researchers know which cancer cells respond, they will have the opportunity to study them more closely.
WHAT CAUSES WHAT?
In some ways it almost seems like a bad joke -- a cancer diagnosis is highly stressful for anyone to have and obviously a time that stress hormones are likely to soar. It's not known whether epinephrine has an impact on the development of cancerous cells but, according to Dr. Kulik, the presence of stress hormones might interfere with cancer care because treatment is designed to trigger apoptosis of the diseased cells. Dr. Kulik and his colleagues are now working to learn more about the impact of stress hormones on individual patients, which he says will be aided by the fact that it is already possible to identify the level of stress hormones people have.
His team has now moved from experiments in the lab to doing them with mice. However, there is no reason to wait to develop better awareness of personal stress levels and to build an arsenal of tools to handle stress more successfully. Immediate responses to the acute stress of, say, receiving disappointing news or being anxious about a big event should include deep breathing, quiet music and other practices that are instantly soothing. For longer-term stress, such as day-to-day parenting challenges, a difficult job situation, or, for that matter, a cancer diagnosis, it is useful to develop stress management skills, which may include meditation, self-hypnosis, exercise and other techniques that calm the mind and the body. You can learn these in formal classes frequently found at community centers, YMCAs and the like, but there are also many books and CDs that are extremely helpful in practicing these techniques at home. Since stress has certainly been linked to other diseases as well, you can't lose by focusing on managing your stress.
George Kulik, PhD, assistant professor of cancer biology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Posted 1/24/2008 11:11:00 AM
January 24, 2008
Tell Your Congressmen and Women to Co Sponsor the Health Freedom Protection Act, H.R. 2117
The FDA is on a rampage against dietary supplements. Preventing reasonable and factual health claims, the FDA is using its immense power to fuel the pharmaceutical profit picture at the expense of the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. The rights of Americans to learn about natural products through truthful, science-based health claims is routinely stifled to the detriment of health and health freedom in the United States.
This bill shifts the burden of proof onto the FDA whenever the agency wants to deny the public the benefit of health claims information about Dietary Supplements.
H. R. 2117 allows reasonable health claims, with proper disclosure language, "unless the Secretary determines that -- `(i) there is no scientific evidence that supports the claim; and `(ii) the claim is inherently misleading and incapable of being rendered non misleading through the addition of a disclaimer." Thus, even "a scintilla" of scientific evidence would allow the making of claims that Dietary Supplements may be of benefit to individuals. The requirements of the bill are consistent with the law that already governs the agency's position, announced in 2004, "FDA intends to apply a standard for substantiating claims for dietary supplements that is consistent with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) standard for dietary supplements and other health related products of 'competent and reliable scientific evidence'."
Urge your Congressmen/women to press for passage of H. R. 2117 and to introduce sister legislation into the Senate. This Health over-regulation of safe food substances to what should properly be considered their main task, protecting people from dangerous drugs and medical devices.
Please use this opportunity to encourage your Representatives to work with other congresspeople to join as cosponsors and your Senators to introduce sister legislation and get behind the Health Freedom Protection Act.
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Posted 1/24/2008 8:50:00 AM
January 17, 2008
A Review of Sugar Shock by Connie Bennett
by Patty Donovan
(NewsTarget) SUGAR SHOCK! How Sweets and Simple Carbs Can Derail Your Life, written by journalist Connie Bennett with Stephen Sinatra MD, is not just another low-carb diet book. In the book, Ms. Bennett explains the addictive nature of sugar and discusses the profound effects this can have on your health. She uses sometimes humorous, sometimes scary anecdotes of how sugar affected her own life to get the point across, but follows these up with scientific explanations that most lay people can understand and quotes from numerous scientists, doctors and other experts. To a person hearing about the evils of sugar for the first time, SUGAR SHOCK! can be frightening but is a real eye-opener. It should make anyone think twice before grabbing that cup of fancy coffee loaded with sugar or the early-afternoon candy bar and soda for a so-called "pick me up".
A self described "sugar-shrew", Ms. Bennett tells you what her life was like with sugar and about the revelations which led her to kick the sugar habit. A journalist by trade, Connie Bennett began investigating sugar after being diagnosed with "reactive hypoglycemia," or low blood sugar, a condition in which the blood sugar rises rapidly after ingestion of simple sugars, then plummets just as rapidly a short time later. In the first chapter, Ms Bennett is able to tie a huge number of seemingly unrelated symptoms to what she has termed "SUGAR SHOCK". She lists 44 debilitating emotional and physical effects of sugar ranging from mood swings and temper tantrums to thoughts of suicide. She also includes such physical symptoms as heart palpitations, fatigue, loss of coordination and fainting. I think the list is something everyone should read and remember. Ms. Bennett describes herself as a "crabby, cantankerous shrew" who had spent years alienating herself from family and friends. She was able to "cure" all 44 symptoms simply by eliminating sugars and refined carbohydrates from her diet.
SUGAR SHOCK! successfully ties in the increase in obesity and Type 2 diabetes to the increased intake of refined carbohydrates. She talks about all refined sugars, not just sucrose and makes a good case against high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) which may be the most harmful of all sugars. SUGAR SHOCK! even explores the effect of sugar and refined carbohydrates on aging. One interesting connection made in this book is that farm subsidies have kept the price of a few commodities, especially corn and soybeans, artificially low while prices for high quality fruits and vegetables have steadily increased. This has led to a surge in products that are extremely cheap to produce, most notably, foods and drinks sweetened with HFCS. These products contribute nothing but harmful elements to our diet yet provide manufacturers with their greatest profits.
Are all carbohydrates evil? SUGAR SHOCK! can be alarming to a person coming across this information for the first time. Although the hazards of refined carbohydrates are very well stated and explored, I don't think enough emphasis is put on healthy carbohydrates and their function in the diet. Yes, she mentions whole grains etc, but the overall tone of the book is that carbohydrates are evil. Ms. Bennett's points about "good" carbs, which are essential to good health, tend to get lost in the midst of the sugar blasting. I don't want you to think that Ms. Bennett advocates cutting out all carbs, because she most certainly does not and she does give appropriate information about which carbohydrates you should switch to. I'm just afraid, that to a first time reader, these points may be lost. Possibly an entire chapter dedicated to only healthy carbs would be helpful. I also found the book a little disjointed. Ms. Bennett would start to talk about something, then say "more on this in Chapter...". Again, for the first time reader and especially for somebody being exposed to this information for the first time, it can be a little disconcerting. I would also like to have seen a recipe section included. Maybe Ms. Bennett will follow up with a cookbook incorporating the principles in Sugar Shock!.
Ms. Bennett concludes the book with a section for parents, a question and answer section on how to get off sugar, her own success strategies and an afterword with stories showing "signs of promise". In a world in which we are constantly bombarded with sugar-filled foods and drinks, this book serves as a great reminder that these foods should NOT form the basis of our diet. Next time you have a craving for a soda or candy bar, read SUGAR SHOCK! and pass it on to your friends and family. If you are new to this information, after reading it the first time, go back and read it again. The book contains lots of wonderful information not just on sugar, but on trans-fats, artificial sweeteners and other harmful elements of most peoples' diets. Some of this information may get overlooked during the first reading but is information you should really know. Bottom line, I would say that SUGAR SHOCK! is a must read for consumers of the Standard American Diet (SAD).
About the author
Patty is a recent convert to health through "whole foods" nutrition and alternative medicine. In April 2007, she was told to go back on morphine, get in a wheelchair and "learn to live with it". Since that time, she has spent countless hours researching nutrtion and alternative health. She comes to News Target with a unique perspective in this area after working in pharmacy and teaching pharmacology for 15 years, followed by 15 years as an RN. In less than 6 months of following this lifestyle, she has lost 50lbs, stopped over 20 prescription drugs and no longer has several "diseases".
Posted 1/17/2008 10:40:00 AM
January 14, 2008
One of the more important messages here is that your cancer, even with treatment, is never all gone. *News from John Hopkins* *AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY (TRY THE KEYWORD) AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHN HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS ANALTERNATIVE WAY .*
*Cancer Update from John Hopkins:*
*1.Every person has cancer cells in the body.These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.*2.Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime. 3.When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.*4.When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors. *5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.*6.Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc. *7.Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.*8.Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often > > reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction. *9.When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications. *10.Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. *Sugar can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites. *11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply. > > CANCER CELLS FEED ON: > > *a.Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like Nutrasweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt. *b.Milk causes the body to produce mucus especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus .By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soya milk cancer cells are being starved. *c.Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. *A meat-based diet is acidic **and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful,especially to people with cancer. *d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. *
*About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F
(40 degrees C). *
**Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine.
Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties.
best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it. *
*12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup. *
*13. ** Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells. *
*14. ** Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Florssence,Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins,minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells.*
Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.*
*15. ** **Cancer is a disease of the mind,body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. *
*Anger, un forgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life. *
*16. **Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment.
Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells. *
*PLEASE READ ON*
*1. No plastic containers in micro.** *
*2. No water bottles in freezer.*
*3. No plastic wrap in microwave.** *
Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well. Dioxin chemicals causes cancer, especially breast cancer. *
*Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital was on a TV program to explain this health hazard.*He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This especially applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. *Instead, he recommends using glass, such as CorningWare, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food. *
*You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the containerand heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is inthe paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, CorningWare, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants move away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons. *Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap,such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper toweL Instead. *This is an article that should be sent to anyone important in your life
Posted 1/14/2008 10:04:00 AM
January 10, 2008
|Can Colon Cancer Screenings Cause More Harm Than Good?|
Screenings for colorectal cancer may not benefit patients with severe illnesses, and they may even cause harm, Yale School of Medicine researchers revealed.
Their new study estimated “payoff time” -- the minimum amount of time it takes for the benefits of a test to outweigh its harm (from complications and side effects) -- for using colonoscopy to screen for colorectal cancer among 50-year-old men with HIV, and 60-year-old women with congestive heart failure.
They found that the screening took up to five years to payoff in the men, and nearly three years among the women. Because patients with severe congestive heart failure may live less than three years, the researchers concluded that the test could cause more harm than good.
However, among the men with HIV, who can often live longer than five years, the screening would likely be beneficial.
The findings have particular importance because current guidelines encourage doctors to offer screening to everyone, regardless of individual benefit.
Posted 1/10/2008 6:34:00 AM
January 8, 2008
Don't get another mammogram until you investigate all your options for preventing and curing breast cancer... "This report exposes the little-known truth about the massive fraud perpetrated by the breast cancer industry. Every woman needs to read and learn the information freely offered in this eye-opening report." - Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, author of Breast Cancer Deception
To your health and wellness,
- Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Nearly everything we've been told about breast cancer by the medical establishment is a lie. Here are just a few of the many shocking truths you've never been told:
Breast cancer is 90% preventable through deliberate changes in foods and lifestyle.
Chemotherapy only works on 1 - 2% of breast cancer patients.
The No. 1 is chronic vitamin D deficiency.
Mammograms actually cause breast cancer.
Breast cancer is not caused by "bad genes."
All woman have cancer cells and micro tumors. Simply having a tiny tumor detected does not mean you need chemotherapy or radiation.
Ten women are harmed by mammography for every one woman who is helped by it.
Countless false positives (false cancer diagnoses) happen every year. You should never trust a single cancer diagnosis.
Most breast cancer centers have a financial incentive to recruit patients by "finding" evidence of breast cancer.
Many oncologists would never undergo the same chemotherapy they prescribe to patients.
Many of the largest breast cancer non-profits are little more than Big Pharma front groups operating a massive patient recruitment scam.
Want to learn more? Read our explosive, eye-opening Breast Cancer Deception report, available right now at: http://www.newstarget.com/Report_Breast_Cancer_Deception_0.html
Posted 1/8/2008 10:16:00 PM