Here's a practical question that's actually been burning in my head for about eight years: Much of what we worry about never comes to fruition. In fact, Kenneth Conklin published a fine review on the subject five years ago. Either way is fine. Do a search for healing lung cancer with cannabis. Roger Jay Claybaugh verified owner — April 29,
Tips for Taking Care of Your Endocrine System
Since I started this thing, the number of herb sites has really escalated, especially blogs. I find it hard to keep up with the good information available and, honestly, typing in links is really quite a drag to do and I have to be in a state of mind to get myself to slog through it , but if you ever come across something that you think is really rather insightful which means not things like, "valerian is good for insomnia!
Also, though I'm personally less interested in evidenced based information studies and research on herbs than I am on actual use by herbalists, I do value it greatly. You can jump to a heading by clicking on what you're looking for A new way to enjoy your herbal infusions darcey blue. Formulas Building a Formula: Removing the Obstacles to Cure shane foley Harmony Remedies: Are they or are they not?
Acute Remedies darcey blue. Green Man's Guide To the Flu: Common Cold david hoffmann Winter Cold Care: Another way to protect the normal cells from radiation while giving the therapy an additional boost in its cancer-killing effectiveness is to use supplements that block the cyclooxygenase 2 COX-2 enzyme.
COX-2 is a special enzyme that causes inflammation. Blocking this enzyme also inhibits the growth of several cancers. Another effect of blocking the COX-2 enzyme is protection of the normal cells against radiation damage.
Of special interest is curcumin , the extract of the spice turmeric. Not only does curcumin block the COX-2 enzyme, offering radiation protection, it also strongly inhibits the growth, invasion, and metastasis of many cancers. This is truly targeted therapy, which oncologists claim to be seeking, with a major bonus of protection of normal cells at the same time. Some fats prevent it, while others promote its development and aid its ability to spread.
A number of experiments have shown that these oils work as an activator for cancer, making it grow and spread like wildfire. They do this through a number of mechanisms, one of which is increasing the COX-2 enzyme.
We call these the pro-inflammatory fats. The good fats include the omega-3 oils and other oils that are converted into EPA and DHA, such as alpha-linolenic acid. The omega-3 oils come from algae, which explains how fish obtain them. A study coming out of India has found that ashwagandha Indian ginseng not only protected mice exposed to high-dose radiation, but also increased their white blood cell counts. With bone marrow depression being a major problem in cancer patients treated with radiation or chemotherapy agents, ashwagandha may be a most useful herb.
Another study found that calcium channel blockers, frequently used to control high blood pressure, can also dramatically protect normal cells from radiation damage, and do not reduce the efficiency of the radiation in killing the cancers. One of the most powerful natural calcium channel blockers is magnesium. This action is how magnesium protects the brain and heart during strokes and heart attacks.
Magnesium plays a major role in protecting many tissues and organs; radioprotection is an added bonus. It is necessary to use several types of nutritional supplements together, since each nutrient plays a separate role in protecting the whole body.
One of the more interesting radiation protectants is the herb ginkgo biloba. Ginkgo contains not only the special components that we associate with memory enhancement, but also several very powerful antioxidant flavonoids, called apigenin, quercetin, and Kaempferol ; all three of these flavonoids powerfully protect cells against radiation-induced damage, especially DNA damage. At the Chernobyl Power Plant accident, the affected workers were given ginkgo biloba extract three times a day for thirty days.
The benefit from the ginkgo began immediately and lasted at least 7 months after the herb was stopped at a steadily decreasing benefit with time. Ginkgo is especially efficient at protecting the blood vessels, and by slightly thinning the blood, it may reduce metastasis of tumors.
The blood-thinning effect of ginkgo biloba taken at a daily dose of mg is approximately equal to that of one aspirin taken daily. Stories of hemorrhaging after taking the herb are serious exaggerations. In addition, there are a number of nutrients that help to strengthen the walls of the blood vessels. This action has the advantage of preventing the spread of cancer, since it is difficult for a tumor to erode through a strong wall.
Following is a good nutritional program: Most cancer patients fear their treatments because of the stories they have heard about terrible fatigue, nausea and vomiting, hair loss, and numerous other complications. Fortunately, most of these complications can be avoided without sacrificing the effectiveness of the conventional treatments. In fact, nutritional treatments and dietary changes can actually enhance the effectiveness of the treatments, making a true cure more likely.
The vast majority of the patients that I have treated, including those who came to me long after their conventional treatments had been started, reported that they felt dramatically better after beginning their nutritional program. They had significantly more energy, little or no nausea, greater endurance, improved mood, and dramatic improvement in their symptoms, including pain.
Pain can be a special problem for patients with bone metastasis. I have noticed that many of my patients with metastatic pain improve, sometimes dramatically, once they are fully on the dietary and supplement program.
In addition, they lose fat weight and gain muscle weight. The fear expressed by oncologists that nutritional supplementation can interfere with the conventional treatments, or even make cancers grow faster, is totally unfounded and denies patients a major weapon in fighting, and ultimately defeating, their cancer.
With panic gripping his voice, he may tell you, with an ever reddening face, that you must not take any antioxidant supplements because they will do two things: Neither of these beliefs is true when the nutritional program is carefully designed. In their minds, they have been give the worst diagnosis a person could ever hear: Everything in their lives suddenly changes.
It has been said that impending death sharpens the mind. It can also cloud the mind. Fear often makes it difficult to think rationally. When most people reach that point, their natural reaction is to turn to the person who is most likely to save them from this horrifying disease. The oncologist, dressed in his starched white coat, stern-faced, eyes either penetrating or evasive, represents a commanding presence. In essence, at that point it is the oncologist who stands between you and a possible reality that you have been fighting so intensely to keep out of your mind: Oncologists represent the best that allopathic medical science has to offer in the fight against cancer.
They have trained for many years in some of the best medical institutions in the country and have access to the latest breakthroughs in cancer treatments. Their world is a secret, often frightening universe dominated by strange words, powerful drugs, and Star Wars -looking machines that hum and destroy tumors.
Their self-assurance and boldness fill you with a renewed hope of a favorable outcome. Success, you tell yourself, depends on doing all that the oncologist tells you to do. After all, your oncologist knows all that is known about cancer. In your mind, you will tell yourself that your oncologist must know something that the person who recommended the nutritional program does not know.
This is a difficult conclusion to overcome. Some cancer patients will, at that point, abandon all thoughts of defying their oncologist. Success, some will conclude, will depend on absolute loyalty to the oncologist. This is a terrifying thought with which many people cannot deal. What Most Doctors do not Know. Unfortunately, this is not true. One of the great intellectual vacuums in medical training is nutrition.
The vast majority of doctors do not know a great deal concerning nutrition, especially in regards to particular illnesses. This is because most medical schools do not teach nutrition to their budding doctors, and the vast majority of residency training programs never mention anything other than the basics. For example, neurosurgeons and neurologists, in general, know very little concerning the effects of nutrition on brain function or its use in treating neurological diseases. The same is true for most medical specialists, especially oncologists.
I have found that the vast majority of oncologists rarely give their patients good advice concerning nutrition. Despite the fact that it has been known for many years now that certain foods and food components can dramatically increase the growth and spread of cancers, oncologists frequently allow their patients to eat these very foods.
In fact, one otherwise excellent book on dealing with cancer recommends, as healthful snacks to keep on hand, cakes, cookies, cheesecake, ice cream and dried fruits. Even to the untrained, these snacks represent poor nutritional choices for anyone. We also know, for example, that many types of fats and oils dramatically promote cancer growth and spread.
All of these fats are the ones most commonly used in processed foods, again being promoted by oncology and hospital dietitians. The doctors themselves do not seem to be aware of these important relationships between cancer and nutrition.
In my own medical community, for instance, an annual report about the oncology services at one of the more prestigious cancer centers advertises the following nutritional services: As we will see, many of these snack items contain components that promote cancer growth. From the time doctors enter medical school all the way through their residency training, they learn to use three things: The remainder of their time is spent on the proper methods of making a diagnosis.
For the oncologist, the greatest emphasis is place of the use of pharmaceuticals and radiotherapy. There is little question that oncologists know an awful lot about the pharmaceutical treatment of cancer.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, successes with this treatment have been few and far between. Despite the tremendous advances made in the nutritional treatment of cancer, especially as a complementary enhancement of the conventional treatments, oncologists remain largely ignorant of this knowledge.
As a result, they not only harm their patients by giving them cancer-promoting nutritional advice, but deny them nutritional treatments that would make their conventional treatments safer and more effective. In the past, we did not know why cancer rates were lower in people who ate a diet of mostly fruits and vegetables.
This left many oncologists skeptical. These therapies often failed as cancer treatments, but at least they were scientific. All of this changed over the past thirty years, especially over the past decade. We now have good scientific explanations about why and how nutrition inhibits cancer development, growth, and spread.
In addition, we have many confirmed studies showing that a large number of nutrients enhance the effectiveness of the traditional treatments, while at the same time reducing their toxicity to normal cells. When we can make chemotherapy agents and radiotherapy less harmful to the normal cells, we can safely increase the dose of these treatments, possibly making the treatments more successful. Because most oncologists know nothing of the vast scientific nutritional literature, much of which appears in their own journals, they continue to scare their patients away from these treatments with stories of harm, which appear in no valid scientific studies.
Their fears are based purely on hypothesis and not on scientifically verifiable facts. Baker, features writer NaturalNews No matter what your health complaint is, if you go see your doctor you might end up undergoing some kind of high tech imaging procedure such as cardiac angiography, CT computed tomography or MRI magnetic resonance imaging.
According to a study published last fall in the journal Health Affairs , medical imaging has soared over the last few years across all types of these tests, doubling the annual medical cost per patient.
In fact, the study confirmed previous reports that patients are far-too-often being subjected to unnecessary imaging. At least, most of these tests are minimally invasive and thoroughly studied to make sure they carry few risks so they are safe, right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. New reports of lasting, health-harming effects from some imaging tests are accumulating. A case in point: It is linked to a greatly increased risk of stroke, heart attack and death.
University of Vermont physician Richard Solomon,MD, and his colleagues investigated patients with kidney disease who were exposed to contrast agents during cardiac angiography. Patients in this study, dubbed the CARE Cardiac Angiography in REnally Impaired Patients trial, were randomly divided with half receiving the contrast agent iopamidol and the other receiving the contrast agent iodixanol.
Many medical imaging techniques, including cardiac angiography and CT scans , often involve the use of contrast agents, substances that contain iodine like iopamidol and iodixanol and barium, because they enhance the contrast between body structures or fluids within the body.
This allows blood vessels and changes in tissues to be more clearly visualized. Solomon and his colleagues followed the CARE patients for one year or longer, they found that 92 31 percent of the research subjects experienced negative health effects after their imaging test. Their risk of having a stroke or heart attack over the next year or two after the test was elevated.
Overall, 38 13 percent of the patients experienced a major event, such as death, stroke, heart attack, or end-stage renal disease. Those who developed contrast-induced kidney injuries had twice as many long-term negative health effects compared with patients who didn't suffer kidney damage. It isn't only people who already have problems with their kidneys who can be at risk from the imaging testing,either. Doctors have long known exposure to contrast agents can cause damage in seemingly healthy kidneys, but patients are usually assured this is just a temporary side effect that will resolve on its own.
However, recent studies have suggested that contrast-induced kidney damage might actually be lasting and serious. In a statement to the media, the University of Vermont researchers said "the CARE trial findings should prompt investigators to design additional studies on the long-term negative health effects of contrast-induced kidney damage". In addition to kidney damage, the contrast agent iopamidol has also been known to sometimes cause seizures in people with a history of epilepsy.
However, in rare case reports, including one published earlier this year in the Internet Journal of Neurology , iopamidol has been found to cause severe seizures and respiratory arrest in non-epileptic patients undergoing imaging tests. As reported in Natural News last April http: A study in the medical journal Radiology found that people who had numerous CT scans over their lifetime had a significantly increased risk of cancer.
In fact, CT scans increased the risk of cancer by 2. The research shows that people who undergo numerous computed tomography CT scans over their lifetime may be at a significantly increased risk of cancer.
In fact, seven percent of the patients studied had enough recurrent CT testing to raise their estimated cancer risk by one percent or more above the baseline US cancer risk rate of 42 percent. Among the patients in the top percentile of cumulative lifetime attributable risk LAR of cancer, CT scans increased their chances of malignancies by 2.
According to the Radiological Society of North America, some CT is commonly used to make medical diagnoses and to help figure out treatment options because the scanning technique provides detailed images of internal organs through digital imaging processing which generates a three-dimensional picture.
To accomplish this, CT scanning involves taking a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images around a single axis of rotation. The result is that CT scans use higher radiation doses than most other imaging exams. For their study, Aaron Sodickson, M. The scientists took each patient's CT history from electronic medical records and applied standard risk estimation models using a formula which takes into account the patient's gender and age at time of x-ray exposure.
In all, some 31, adult patients were studied. About 33 percent of the research subjects underwent five or more lifetime CT exams, five percent had more than 22 CT scans, and approximately one percent underwent more than 38 exams. Fifteen percent received estimated cumulative effective radiation doses of more than millisieverts mSv -- equal to the radiation from 1, chest x-rays. Four percent received a whopping radiation exposure of more than mSv and one percent were subjected to over mSv.
Sodickson said in a statement released to the media. This scenario may result in a combination of high cumulative risk with low clinical benefit," he added. Sodickson also pointed out that the techniques implemented in his group's study could be used to identify higher risk patients who might benefit from "enhanced radiation protection efforts". This statement is of particular interest because it appears to indicate better radiation protection is available -- although clearly not being routinely used.
Other scientists have previously urged restraint in using CT scans too often and have sounded alarms over the radiation exposure associated with the technology. In fact, they stated one third of all CT scans performed in the United States may not even be medically necessary.
One of the most difficult tasks I had to confront during my tenure in Alaska was facing arrogant, closed-minded oncologists. They were absolutely intent on poisoning their patients with chemotherapy. They also instilled terrible fear and trepidation in their patients.
Many of them threatened to walk away from the case if the patients saw me for nutritional protection. I saw my role as protecting them from the chemicals poured into their bodies.
They scorned me for trying to help. Through the years, more and more studies show that antioxidants protect from the ravages of chemo and assist in the benefits yes, there are benefits if used correctly. But one of the best and cheapest supplements I used to protect my patients from the poison was selenium. They randomized the patients to receive chemo alone or chemo with selenium as sodium selenite.
Those given selenium received 0. Patients receiving selenium had significantly higher levels of neutrophils. These are white blood cells not directly connected with the cancer. Neutrophils protect you against bacteria. The patients consequently had a much lower infection rate. The selenium group also had a better ejection fraction from their hearts. One known side effect of chemo is it damages often permanently the pumping ability of your heart.
The selenium prevented that toxic effect. I know many alternative-minded cancer patients opt for conventional chemotherapy. Your oncologist might be similarly close-minded. But you can still protect yourself. Selenium is a great place to start. These might save your heart, immune system, and bone marrow from unnecessary destruction.
Please see your integrative physician for advice on personal dosing. They are poisons that could have terrible side effects. But there are some drugs where the good outweighs the bad. According to a new study, two nutrients can do just that. In the study, researchers gave two groups of rats a dose of gentamycin, a commonly used antibiotic that causes kidney damage.
They gave the first group of mice only the gentamycin. But they gave the second group CoQ10 and green tea, individually and in combination, before giving them the antibiotic. The mice in the first group had significant deterioration in common blood test markers for kidney function, such as BUN and creatinine.
But, more importantly, they also had significant free radical-type damage and loss of antioxidant enzymes in their kidney cells. But the rats in the second group, given the nutrients, did not suffer the renal damage found in the first group.
They also had less free radical damage and more antioxidant enzymes in their kidney cells. The results were "most dramatic," according to the researchers, when both nutrients were combined. And you can reduce, if not eliminate, much toxicity simply by increasing your antioxidant levels.
But you can also reduce Tylenol toxicity by raising glutathione in your liver. This is true for many other drugs. Modern medicine ignores that the sickest people, those requiring the most drugs, are usually the most nutritionally depleted.
So they suffer most of the dangerous side effects. However, we could eliminate much of this damage with supplements or a Living Foods Diet, which is loaded with antioxidant protection. If you need a drug of any kind, please be sure that your diet is the best it can be. It takes some time to increase blood levels of antioxidants once you begin.
So please improve your diet today. A good diet and supplements could protect you if you should suddenly need to take a drug. And it could help prevent the need at all. I don't have to tell you how rough chemotherapy can be on your body.
It can cause hair loss, diarrhea, mouth ulcers, low blood count and loss of appetite, vomiting and more.
But that's not all. Unfortunately, it's difficult to talk friends and loved ones out of taking chemo. They fear these vitamins will interfere with the chemo's effects on your cancer.
But, there's no credible evidence that this happens. And, as you'll see from the results of this study, this preparation can greatly help your ability to tolerate chemo -- allowing it to fight the cancer better. As you know, I don't ever recommend chemo for anyone. But if you insist on "listening to your doctor," at least you should be aware that the most respected chemotherapy journal has now weighed in with an article saying that Vitamin C is a wonderful way to offset the side effects of the chemo and has no adverse effects.
Here's the article on it from Dr. Doctors often warn chemotherapy patients against taking antioxidants. Where they get this nonsense is beyond me. But here is a brand new study that shows you how ridiculous their thinking is. You read that right! It might actually make chemotherapy drugs more effective.
In the study, patients took vitamin C along with the common chemotherapy drugs 5-FU and cisplatin. The researchers found that vitamin C altered the DNA of the cancer, which made it more sensitive to chemotherapy. They also found that vitamin C actually improves the cancer-fighting ability of the drugs. When I lived in Anchorage , oncologists repeatedly condemned me for the same reason. I hope this new information, which was published in one of their respected journals, will change their minds on this.
If you or anyone you know is using chemotherapy, this is life-saving information. Make sure the oncologist sees this article. The cancer you kill, and the hair you save, might be your own. If you've got cancer and are using chemotherapy to treat it, you're at the center of a very hot controversy. Conventional doctors insist you shouldn't take antioxidants while on chemo. But many trailblazing alternative doctors, including yours truly, believe just the opposite.
And with good reason. In Anchorage , I was ostracized for giving my chemo patients antioxidants. It was clear that my patients were benefiting from them.
The local medical mob even brought up paid "assassins" to rile the local doctors in hospital speeches against cancer nutritional therapy. Fortunately, we already had a medical freedom law in place protecting me. And my patients had a huge advantage over other patients who stuck with the conventional treatment alone.
In the past, I've told you about some of the supplements I used. CoQ10 is important for protecting you from toxicity.
And vitamin C actually makes the chemo even more effective. But now there's evidence that vitamin E is vital for cancer patients on chemo. According to a new study, vitamin E can reduce the damage to nerves caused by the chemo drug cisplatin by a stunning two-thirds. The researchers gave vitamin E to one group of patients on cisplatin, but not to a control group.
The group not receiving vitamin E had a whopping Just mg daily of vitamin E reduced that risk to only Further, those taking vitamin E that did get toxicity had significantly less damage. I do believe chemotherapy has its place in cancer treatment. In fact, if you came to see me to treat your cancer, I would not try to talk you into or out of any therapy. I would just lay out all the possibilities. You make the decision. If you decide on conventional chemo, bless you. However, you can be protected from the terrible toxicity and have a better result with cheap nutrition!
Please don't let your oncologist mislead you about supplements while on chemo. This truth has been out for years. The best cancer management combines the best of both worlds! Support Care Cancer, ; 14 NaturalNews No matter what your health complaint is, if you go see your doctor you might end up undergoing some kind of high tech imaging procedure such as cardiac angiography, CT computed tomography or MRI magnetic resonance imaging.
According to a study published last fall in the journal Health Affairs, medical imaging has soared over the last few years across all types of these tests, doubling the annual medical cost per patient. Many medical imaging techniques, including cardiac angiography and CT scans, often involve the use of contrast agents, substances that contain iodine like iopamidol and iodixanol and barium, because they enhance the contrast between body structures or fluids within the body.
However, in rare case reports, including one published earlier this year in the Internet Journal of Neurology, iopamidol has been found to cause severe seizures and respiratory arrest in non-epileptic patients undergoing imaging tests.
NaturalNews A new study just published in the April issue of the medical journal Radiology has a sobering conclusion for anyone who thinks "non-invasive" CT scans are simply pain-free, high tech medical marvels with no downside. You may know that too much stress leads to heart disease and deadly heart attacks. But did you know that a lot of cancer cases suddenly appear after a prolonged period of stress?
Doctors have seen this in their patients for some time. But they never had scientific evidence to connect the two. But now we have it. Researchers have discovered that your body makes a hormone called noradrenalin when you're under stress. Noradrenalin, as you can tell from its name, is very similar to adrenaline.
Like adrenaline, it's also made by your adrenals and it produces impulses in your brain akin to feelings of excitement. However, the researchers found that noradrenalin also stimulates two enzymes called metalloproteinases. These enzymes dissolve the tissue around tumors, which enables cancer cells to move into the newly vacated areas.
Noradrenalin may also stimulate the tumor cells to release a chemical called vascular endothelial growth factor or VEGF. VEGF stimulates new arteries to grow, which delivers blood to feed the growing cancer. VEGF can speed the growth and spread of cancer. Stress is necessary for life. We can't live, learn, and grow without it.
A runner must stress his body to achieve victory. The physicist must stress hours over how to set up a nuclear reaction. Like everything else, though, there's a balance. Go too far beyond that balance for too long and stress becomes your enemy. In fact, if the body produces noradrenalin for too long, cancer becomes much more likely. Much of what we worry about never comes to fruition. We can't do much about it.
Have you ever seen worry change the outcome of anything? There are some things you can do to avoid cancer-causing stress. The first is to take up meditation or prayer to give yourself some quiet time. Many studies have shown that people who meditate and pray lead much healthier lives. Also try drinking some chamomile tea in the evening to settle your body down.
If you're very stressed, I suggest you try taking the homeopathic Rescue Remedy, which is available at most health food stores. And if you haven't learned to do so yet, there's no time like now to practice unconditional forgiveness and love.
Love rests the soul and forgiveness rests the mind, that otherwise would be stimulating your brain to make lots of noradrenalin. Cancer Research November 1, ; 66 Did you know that flying in an airplane exposes you to radiation? In fact, one cross-country trip can net you the equivalent radiation of one chest x-ray. That's one x-ray too many for me.
Each time you expose your body to radiation, it increases your risk for DNA damage, premature aging, and cancer. If you fly a lot, this is especially bad news. But a new study shows there's an easy way to protect yourself when you fly. This study showed that cells cultured with my favorite free radical scavengers i. The researchers used vitamin C, CoQ10, alpha lipoic acid, selenium, N-acetyl cysteine, and vitamin E succinate. The antioxidants completely or nearly completely protected the cells from a variety of radiation sources.
That includes even the highly damaging gamma radiation. You will find all of the radiation sources they tested in space or high altitude. If you fly, look for a single supplement containing the above nutrients.
Further, if you need an x-ray or any other diagnostic test that uses radiation, make sure you take these nutrients before the test. There are multitudes of quality antioxidant supplements on the Internet and in health food stores. Low vitamin intake makes chemotherapy side effects even worse. Chemotherapy is bad enough to begin with -- it's an entirely unproven therapy, with absolutely no scientific merit.
It doesn't improve a person's lifespan a single day, and yet it remains a widespread treatment for cancer. Minimizing the side effects of chemotherapy which is, after all, an extremely toxic procedure remains one of the top priorities for patients and doctors alike. And one of the best ways to do that, research shows, is to take your vitamins. Patients with vitamin deficiencies suffered the worst side effects of leukemia, while those with high vitamin intake had greatly reduced side effects.
But here's the rest of the story you won't find in the press: If you or anyone you know is considering chemotherapy, I strongly urge you to read the full account of this research in my free online book, Superfoods For Optimum Health. There, you'll read about research that shows patients who took chlorella supplements absolutely stunned doctors with their miraculous survival rates.
Better yet, they largely avoided the nasty side effects of chemotherapy. Avoid chemotherapy in the first place. But if you're crazy enough to actually undergo this barbaric treatment for cancer, take loads of chlorella: Just take chlorella and skip the chemotherapy. Add spirulina to your diet, avoid sodium nitrite, stop eating all processed foods, white starch, sugar, and you'll probably cure your own cancer anyway.
Modern treatments for cancer are largely a sham to begin with. Read Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss for details. I'm Ralph Moss, author of Questioning Chemotherapy. I want to tell you how and why I came to write this book. I started as a believer in chemotherapy. I was impressed by the then-emerging cures for Hodgkin's disease, acute lymphocytic leukemia and some other relatively rare cancers.
At the same time, I began to learn how skeptical many good scientists were about chemotherapy's future. The major objection to "chemo" was that these drugs did not discriminate between normal and cancerous cells, but attacked all rapidly dividing cells. One scientist described this method as "trying to melt a patient's left ear, while leaving the right one alone.
Because chemotherapy drugs were general cellular poisons, they could be terribly toxic. They were also very expensive for patients and for society as a whole. When I learned about the links between the pharmaceutical industry and the cancer establishment later detailed in my book, The Cancer Industry I understood the commercial reason that such an inadequate modality was so heavily promoted. In , a German biostatistician named Ulrich Abel, Ph.
It made few waves in the U. In this excellent work, however, Dr. Abel rigorously demonstrated that chemotherapy had never been scientifically proven to extend life through randomized clinical trials RCTs in the vast majority of "epithelial cancers.
Some years later, in response to many requests, I decided to write a critical book about chemotherapy a sort of companion piece to Cancer Therapy.
I took Abel's out-of-print work as my starting point, but also consulted the work of many other students of chemotherapy. In this book, I update statistics and speak about all cancers and not just carcinomas. I go into depth on the politics and economics of the chemotherapy industry, on the biases, fallacies and frauds that occur, and on ways of warding off the sometimes catastrophic side effects that accompany this treatment.
The essential point of the book is that one must question the measure of success in chemotherapy. Oncologists have tended to equate an increasing percentage of "responses" with progress. However, responses are generally measurements of tumor shrinkage, for as little as one month's duration. One cannot automatically assume that a response--even a complete response--will lead to increased survival.
One must look for increased survival. Yet the number of cancers for which life prolongation through chemotherapy has been proven through randomized clinical trials is very small. I do bend over backwards to point these out, when they occur. So when a doctor says her regimen yields a 40 percent response rate, "what exactly is she promising, a short-term shrinkage of tumors -- or actual life-prolongation?
What effect is this treatment likely to have on the patient's quality of life? And what is the cost? Questioning Chemotherapy is intended to help patients by providing them with a critical perspective on this now dominant modality. A revealing critique of chemotherapy, this book looks objectively at chemo's successes and failures. No More Tamoxifen for Breast Cancer?
My mother had breast cancer so I always considered myself at high risk and was planning to take tamoxifen for prevention. I just heard that it won't help. In , results of a study involving more than 13, women showed that tamoxifen can also lower the risk of breast cancer among healthy women, cutting the anticipated number of cases by 49 percent. However, until recently, no study looked at tamoxifen's effects on overall survival. Error in sending files, please try again.
Do you want to Cancel Order? To change your current locality Click here Proceed with current locality. Service Locality Select the locality where you wish to receive delivery or store pickup. Enter City Top selling cities: Test Server Side Warning Message. Password Please Enter Password. If you are an existing medplus customer enter the registered mobile number with us.