News

Cancer Victors News

November 25, 2008

Breast Cancer Rates Soar after Mammograms and Some Cancers m

NaturalNews) A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reaches a startling conclusion. Breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.

This raises some obvious and worrisome questions: Did the x-rays and/or the sometimes torturous compression of breasts during mammography actually spur cancer to develop? Or does this just look like an increase in the disease rate because mammography is simply identifying more cases of breast cancer?

The answer to the first question is that no one knows (and it isn't addressed in the Archives of Internal Medicine study). But the second question has an unexpected and – for those interested in the human body's innate ability to heal itself – potentially paradigm-shifting answer. The researchers say they can't blame the increased incidence of breast cancer on more cases being found because the rates among regularly screened women remained higher than rates among women of the same age who only received mammograms once after six years. Bottom line: the scientists conclude this indicates that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. Simply put, it appears that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the body's own immune system.

Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D., Ph.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, and his research team studied breast cancer rates among 119,472 women (age 50 to 64). These research subjects were asked to participate in three rounds of screening mammograms between 1996 and 2001, as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. The scientists then compared the number of breast cancers found in this group to the rate of malignancies among a control group of 109,784 women who were the same ages in 1992, and who would have been invited for breast screenings if the program had been in place that year. Cancers were tracked using a national registry. Then, after six years, all participants were invited to undergo a one-time screening to assess for the prevalence of breast cancer.

The researchers were surprised to find that the incidence of invasive breast cancer was 22 percent higher in the group regularly screened with mammography. In fact, screened women were more likely to have breast cancer at every age.

"Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years," the authors stated in their report. "This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."

The researchers also conclude that their findings "provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress."

This does not mean breast cancer should be ignored or not treated. After all, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American women. But the extraordinarily good and hopeful news is that it appears invasive breast cancer sometimes can be destroyed naturally -- at least in some people -- by the body's own innate defenses.

"Although many clinicians may be skeptical of the idea, the excess incidence associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression be considered carefully," the scientists wrote in their report. "Spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported, with a recent literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed to follow their natural course."

In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine that accompanies the breast cancer study, Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Franz Porzsolt, M.D., Ph.D., of Clincal Economics University of Ulm, Germany, wrote that the most important concern raised by the study is "how surprisingly little we know about what happens to untreated patients with breast cancer.
In addition to not knowing the natural history of breast cancer for younger women, we also know very little about the natural history for older women. We know from autopsy studies that a significant number of women die without knowing that they had breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ). The observation of a historical trend toward improved survival does not necessarily support the benefit of treatment."

Posted 11/25/2008 12:42:00 PM

November 24, 2008

More on Mammograms: Beware!

(NaturalNews) A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reaches a startling conclusion. Breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer. This raises some obvious and worrisome questions: Did the x-rays and/or the sometimes torturous compression of breasts during mammography actually spur cancer to develop? Or does this just look like an increase in the disease rate because mammography is simply identifying more cases of breast cancer? The answer to the first question is that no one knows (and it isn't addressed in the Archives of Internal Medicine study). But the second question has an unexpected and – for those interested in the human body's innate ability to heal itself – potentially paradigm-shifting answer. The researchers say they can't blame the increased incidence of breast cancer on more cases being found because the rates among regularly screened women remained higher than rates among women of the same age who only received mammograms once after six years. Bottom line: the scientists conclude this indicates that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. Simply put, it appears that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the body's own immune system. Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D., Ph.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, and his research team studied breast cancer rates among 119,472 women (age 50 to 64). These research subjects were asked to participate in three rounds of screening mammograms between 1996 and 2001, as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. The scientists then compared the number of breast cancers found in this group to the rate of malignancies among a control group of 109,784 women who were the same ages in 1992, and who would have been invited for breast screenings if the program had been in place that year. Cancers were tracked using a national registry. Then, after six years, all participants were invited to undergo a one-time screening to assess for the prevalence of breast cancer. The researchers were surprised to find that the incidence of invasive breast cancer was 22 percent higher in the group regularly screened with mammography. In fact, screened women were more likely to have breast cancer at every age. "Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years," the authors stated in their report. "This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress." The researchers also conclude that their findings "provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress." This does not mean breast cancer should be ignored or not treated. After all, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American women. But the extraordinarily good and hopeful news is that it appears invasive breast cancer sometimes can be destroyed naturally -- at least in some people -- by the body's own innate defenses. "Although many clinicians may be skeptical of the idea, the excess incidence associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression be considered carefully," the scientists wrote in their report. "Spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported, with a recent literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed to follow their natural course." In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine that accompanies the breast cancer study, Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Franz Porzsolt, M.D., Ph.D., of Clincal Economics University of Ulm, Germany, wrote that the most important concern raised by the study is "how surprisingly little we know about what happens to untreated patients with breast cancer. In addition to not knowing the natural history of breast cancer for younger women, we also know very little about the natural history for older women. We know from autopsy studies that a significant number of women die without knowing that they had breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ). The observation of a historical trend toward improved survival does not necessarily support the benefit of treatment."

Posted 11/24/2008 2:29:00 PM

November 15, 2008

Apricot Seeds For Immune System Health

We all want our immune systems to function well. After all, it is our immune systems that keep us from getting ill. It is easy to see which people have stronger immune systems sometimes. For example, take a look at teachers in an elementary school building. Some teachers may come down with every cold, flu, or bug that is going around-these are typically the newly hired teachers or teachers who are new to that particular school system. The other teachers who rarely get ill have stronger immune systems in relation to those types of illnesses because their bodies have adapted to that specific setting.

There are ways to boost the immune system, though-methods through which anyone can work to try to strengthen his immune system so as to be less susceptible to both regular, everyday types of illnesses and more serious illnesses such as cancer.

You can boost your immune system through the use of apricot seeds. Though many conventional doctors may not subscribe to this theory, it does work (and anyway, conventional doctors nearly always reject alternative therapies out of hand, don't they?).

Taking apricot seeds works to prevent 'bad' cells in your body from forming, thus strengthening your immune system. Apricot seeds have the toxin cyanide as part of their structure; this cyanide, though, is only released when the amygdalin of the apricot seeds comes into contact with a 'bad' cell in your body. At that point, the cyanide works to destroy the bad cell.

If you take apricot seeds on a regular basis, your body will remain detoxified and free of the 'bad' cells that commonly cause the more serious types of illnesses, including cancer.

There are hundreds of different types of cancer. The odds of getting some type of cancer at some point during your lifetime are relatively high-especially considering what scientists tell us.

They tell us that our bodies are continually making cancerous cells. That's pretty scary, isn't it? Well, there is a way to prevent those cancerous cells from ever developing into cancer-a way to destroy those cells before they have a chance to do any harm. It involves the use of apricot seeds.

Normally our immune systems can deal with the cancerous cells that our bodies are producing, scientists say. However, what if yours cannot? That means you will develop some type of cancer. So, perhaps you should try taking apricot seeds as a method of cancer prevention...just in case.

Any Apricot Seeds?

Now, before you head off to your local health foods store or nutrition store and grab whatever bag of apricot seeds you can find, there are a few things you need to know. First and foremost, the apricot seeds you would find at your local store are not the type of seeds you could use for cancer prevention.

Health food stores carry either sun-dried or roasted apricot kernels. While these may have nutritive benefits, they do not have any type of cancer preventive properties. Instead, you need raw apricot seeds.

Why Raw Apricot Seeds?

Raw apricot seeds have a special construction that allows them to destroy cancerous cells-in the process of roasting the seeds or sun-drying the seeds, this special construction is, itself, destroyed. Roasted and sun-dried seeds do not have the component that is necessary to destroy the cancer cells.

Raw seeds are comprised of amygdalin. Amygdalin has cyanide locked away that only cancer cells can unlock. When the amygdalin comes into contact with a cancer cell, the cyanide comes and destroys the cell. It is this component that the roasted and sun-dried apricot seeds are lacking. Amygdalin is also called B17. In its extracted, pure form it is also known as laetrile. Laetrile has been used to treat cancer sufferers in some cancer clinics.

Posted 11/15/2008 8:42:00 AM

November 13, 2008

Gwenyth Paltrow- All Natural Beauty Secrets!

It's All Natural: Gwyneth Paltrow's Beauty is Not Just Skin Deep

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 by: Josefina Laurens
Key concepts: Health, Gwyneth Paltrow and Healthy lifestyle

NaturalNews) At 36, Gwyneth Paltrow is in great shape and could easily pass for someone ten years younger. But unlike many of the Hollywood celebrities who go under the knife to resculpt their bodies, Paltrow's slim figure and flawless skin are not the result of plastic surgery.

In her online newsletter called GOOP (www.goop.com), which Paltrow launched in September 2008, the Oscar-winning actress credits her great physical and mental condition to a health-conscious lifestyle, which includes natural foods and exercise.

But Paltrow says her road to good health had not been without bumps. "Over the years I have tried a lot of different things and made a lot of mistakes," she points out on her site. "But I have figured some things out in the process."

And it all started, she says, with a family tragedy.

A turning point

Paltrow's road to heath consciousness began a decade ago. While filming The Talented Mr. Ripley in Italy in 1998, the actress learned that her TV producer father, Bruce Paltrow, had been diagnosed with throat cancer.

"During this time I began to read about Eastern medicine and the body's capacity to heal itself," she writes in the newsletter, noting that although she tried to encourage her dad to follow a healthy lifestyle, the results were mixed.

"He loved acupuncture but hated macrobiotic food, which he likened to biting into The New York Times," Paltrow writes.

Sadly, Bruce Paltrow passed away in 2002, but the lessons the actress had learned in that four –year period are still serving her well today. "I had read that in Asia, the concept of going to the doctor when you were already sick was akin to digging a well when you were already thirsty," she notes. "This struck a chord with me."

Prescription for a Healthier Life

Common wisdom has it that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that is the message Paltrow conveys in the newsletter.

She asked her three doctors, whom she credits with helping her overcome pneumonia, anemia and stress, to share their insights into creating and fostering a healthy lifestyle.

One of the physicians, the Los Angeles-based Dr. Christian Renna D.O., an expert in the field of contemporary preventive medicine, writes about the power of good sleep, exercise, and positive thinking.

"Do what you have to do to get to sleep; there are plenty of natural agents that work," he urges on GOOP. "Try herbs (valerian), tea (chamomile), amino acids (tryptophan or hydroxy-tryptophan) and vitamins (magnesium and B6). These can be powerful sedatives and work just as well as prescription agents without the risks."

Another doctor, Alejandro Junger, a cardiologist who practices integrative healing in New York City, advises detoxification cleansing from all the waste products of normal metabolism. Cleansing, he says, is "a natural, common-sense medicine, enabling the body to heal, regenerate and even rejuvenate itself."

The cleansed body, Junger adds, should be nourished with wholesome, toxin-free food, "the best way to avoid disease and premature aging."

Paltrow's third doctor, London-based Neish Joshi, who practices centuries-old ayurvedic traditions and a wide variety of other healing philosophies and techniques from all over the world, sings praises to the benefits of "holistic detox."

"The older, more natural forms of medicine work predominantly on promoting and improving the body's ability to eliminate waste and towards finding balance and well-being," he writes on GOOP. "My motivation is towards the nutritional needs of a healthy body, on encouraging better sleep patterns, ways of coping with stress and reducing its effects on the body, and teaching individuals how to make healthy lifestyle choices: the true mind-body-spirit sense of health and well-being."

Just what the doctors ordered

Paltrow, who has two young children with musician Chris Martin, front man for the British rock group Coldplay, says the advice of each of her three doctors "has helped me out of some very sticky health problems."

The holistic approach to a healthy lifestyle is making all the difference in her physical and mental well-being. "My life is good because I am not passive about it," she sums up.

Related CounterThink Cartoons:

Posted 11/13/2008 12:43:00 PM

November 11, 2008

Mammograms offer no health benefits whatsoever, doctors conc

An Australian team from the University of Queensland see little, if any, benefit in screening women under 50 years of age, but they do point out some of the serious negative effects - later ill effects from the radiation they are exposed to during the mammogram, the possibility that an existing tumor may spread due to the pressure exerted on the breast during screening, and the anxiety caused by frequent false- positive results. The Canadian researchers point out that a false-positive result may not only produce great stress, but may also lead to unnecessary biopsies and surgery. They also point out that mammography misses 10-15 per cent of early breast cancers thus providing a false sense of security.

Mammograms offer no health benefits whatsoever, doctors conclude
Danish researcher Dr. Peter Gotzsche first made this claim in a study published in "The Lancet" in October 2006. Gotzsche had re-analyzed the studies originally done on the benefits of mammograms and found them unconvincing. Since then, other doctors have begun to assert that in addition to failing to offer protection, mammograms — which involve exposing patients to radiation —may actually increase women's risk of cancer. "The latest evidence shifts the balance towards harm and away from benefits," said Dr. Michael Baum of University College in London. Gifford-Jones also points to other risks, from the physical to the psychological. According to some authorities, the squeezing of women's breasts during mammograms may rupture blood vessels, causing cancer to spread to other parts of the body and actually increasing a patient's risk of death. He also pointed to the trauma suffered by women who receive false positives from their mammograms, and to the dangerous sense of security felt by those who receive false negatives.

Mammography Madness

Some years ago a British surgeon blasted American doctors as "immoral" for screening women under 50 for breast cancer. On a visit to the Long Island Jewish Hospital Medical Center Dr. Baum said the screening was "opportunistic" and did more harm than good. "Over 99 percent of premenopausal women will have no benefit from screening. Even for women over 50, there has been only a one percent biopsy rate as a result of screening in the United Kingdom. The density of the breast in younger women make mammography a highly unreliable procedure." (Medical Tribune, 3/26/92)

A yet unpublished Canadian study even suggests, the rumor goes, that younger women are more likely to die if they expose themselves to mammograms instead of just relying on physical breast exams. The investigators say this earlier finding has not proven to be true but Dr. Cornelia Barnes of the University of Toronto said: "We will not say that mammography kills. The conclusion that will be reached is that younger women do not benefit [by having a reduced mortality]." (Emphasis added.)

Dr. Barnes said the danger of early mammograms is not from radiation but from false-positive results that can lead to unnecessary biopsies, resulting in scar tissue that can make subsequent mammograms more difficult to read. more

"Screening mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer for premenopausal women. The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray. The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening. These risks are even greater for younger women subject to "baseline screening." Dr. Mercola

Benefits of mammogram are being questioned
Breast cancer screening may cause more harm than good

Do you have a question or need guidance? Patricia Wilson volunteers her time to provide guidance and support in your quest to find relevant information. She can be reached at 281-581-2424 or 206-222-1619 (USA) or click here to email Patricia .

Los Angeles Times April 28, 2001: Key Breast Cancer Study Was a Fraud : A key study pointing to the effectiveness of high-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants in treating metastatic breast cancer was based on faked data, cancer experts said Thursday. The American Society of Clinical Oncology announced that an unscrupulous South African researcher, Dr. Werner Bezwoda, has led thousands of women with breast cancer to undergo expensive, debilitating and often fatal bone marrow transplants. His data were fraudulent..."
FDA Advisory Committee Urged To Reject Zeneca's application of Tamoxifen For Preventing Breast Cancer in Healthy Women as the Drug is Ineffective and Dangerous. more

After running her own successful business in Wellness Alternatives, Pamela Hoeppner faced the unthinkable. She was diagnosed with a malignant, fast-growing breast cancer. Pam declined all conventional treatment and chose an alternative approach with an impressive track record instead, which resulted in her full recovery. Convinced that mutilation and toxic treatments are not always necessary she wanted others to know there ARE options that don't involve devastating a person's body and their quality of life. In her inspiring book, The Breast Stays Put, with a delivery all her own, she shares her courageous story of overcoming a deadly diagnosis, and provides prevention and treatment information

David Brownstein, MD - "The Breast Stays Put is a wonderfully written first-hand account of how one woman overcame her life-threatening diagnosis of cancer using only alternative medicine. I believe this is a must read for anyone diagnosed with breast cancer, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about treating cancer with alternative therapies."

Transfer Factors and Breast Cancer
Duane Townsend, M.D. - "I'm a cancer physician. I have many cancer patients on transfer factors, along with traditional treatment protocols. I believe that transfer factors has been very beneficial to these patients. I primarily treat female cancer and certainly encourage my patients who are undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy to take transfer factors. It helps to modulate the immune system. I have patients with chronic herpes infections who are taking transfer factors on a regular basis and it's reducing the number of outbreaks. I've also had patients with chronic yeast infections, and the transfer factors has reduced their infections as well. Transfer factors is a science-based product with data from a variety of researchers." Dr. Townsend is the former Director of Gynecologic Oncology and Gynecologic Endoscopy at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. He has authored over 90 papers in peer review journals and fifteen chapters in books. Dr. Townsend created a well-known procedure in dealing with precancer of the cervix.

Dr. Townsend has had more than 32 years of distinguished experience in the medical field. He pioneered a surgical technique for the treatment of pre-malignant disease of the uterine cervix. In addition, he has authored more than 90 scientific papers in peer review journals as well as over 15 chapters in research books.

Ann Lane was diagnosed with Hodgkin's cancer. The tumor mass filled her rib cage. Her immune system dropped into the 2,000 range. She began her chemotherapy regimen along with a nutritional protocol (containing transfer factors) along with the traditional therapies administered by her physician. Ann's blood work revealed that 30 days after beginning her nutritional protocol (including transfer factors), her immune system went up to and maintained a level ranging between 4,200 and 7,200. Ann believes that the nutrition, especially transfer factors improved the effectiveness of her immune system, and that made the difference and possibly saved her life.

Effects of Dialyzable Transfer Factor in Patients with Breast Cancer Five patients with advanced breast cancer were treated with pooled dialyzable transfer factors from healthy adult donors. The period of treatment ranged from 21 to 310 days, the total dose from 20 to 257 ml. Transfer factors did not elicit inflammatory or hypersensitivity reactions or detectable formation of antibody to itself, nor any hematological or biochemical abnormalities or other side effects. Three patients became responsive (by skin test) to tuberculin and/or streptococcal antigens. Marked partial regression of the breast cancer, lasting 6 months, was observed in one patient.

Posted 11/11/2008 9:30:00 PM