Curing Breast Cancer Without Surgery? Great Start to the New Year!

Consider This New, Easy Way To Treat Small Breast Tumors (No Scars!) In an earlier article I told you about a procedure doctors have been using since the 1990s to kill prostate cancer cells without surgery. Now it looks like this same innovative approach can be used on small breast tumors as well. It’s exciting news (and not just because it’s almost painless, is an out-patient procedure, and leaves no scars). Nearly all women who are told they have early-stage breast cancer elect to have it cut out rather than take their chances on alternative treatments. Although it’s a normal response, it’s also a panic response. I’d give alternative therapies two or three weeks, at least – and I bet you’ll be happy with the results. If you want to know what the best alternatives are, consider our Special Report Breast Cancer Cover-Up. But if you’re in the majority who just wants to get rid of the darn thing, now conventional medicine has come up with a new way that sounds more reasonable to me than surgery. Keep reading to learn more. . . Continued below… The Amish Cancer SecretHow to cure just about any cancer the Amish way Is it possible to cure just about any cancer the Amish way? Is it true that many Amish people easily get rid of cancer in just three or four weeks? Are the Amish onto something BIG? To find out, I interviewed Jakob and Fannie, a young Amish couple from southern Minnesota. Jakob and Fannie are just two out of roughly 800 Amish people each year who travel 2,000 miles by train to go to a little-known cancer clinic. They told me an amazing, lifesaving tip that everyone should know. . .but almost nobody does. Click here and I’ll share it with you, absolutely FREE. Cryoablation—also known as cryotherapy or cryosurgery—involves the use of controlled freeze-and-thaw cycles to destroy cancer cells in both malignant and benign tumors. In 2012, IceCure Medical Ltd. of Israel successfully used their IceSense3 cryoablation procedure on four breast cancer patients to treat small, early stage breast cancer tumors (fibroadenomas). Traditionally, a surgical biopsy was the only option for removing these tumors. But cryoablation provides a less invasive option that even the Food and Drug Administration approves for treating fibroadenomas. IceSense3 has been developed specifically for breast tumors and uses ultrasound imaging to guide thin, hollow needles into the tumor. Doctors then use liquid nitrogen or argon gas to cool the end of the needle to -274 F (-170 C). This turns the tumor into a ball of ice and allows your body to reabsorb the dead cells over time. Use of the probe also helps ensure that only breast tumor cells are killed—leaving surrounding tissues unharmed. Eisuke Fukuma, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Breast Center at Kameda Medical Center in Kamogawa City, Japan, is leader of a clinical trial that will eventually involve 30 small early stage breast cancer patients. Four have been treated as of the latest information I have. In a company statement, Dr. Fukuma said “this procedure is an exciting step towards moving treatment of small, early stage breast cancer tumors from open surgery to a minimally invasive cryoablation procedure.” What are the pros and cons of this treatment? Cryoablation has been used for years to treat both malignant and benign tumors. Over 400 published studies document the clinical value of cryotherapy to treat prostate cancer. And recent studies show ten-year cure rates as high as 90% for low risk (presumably early stage) patients. This represents the same success rate as surgery or radiation treatments. I actually think cryotherapy sounds like a more reasonable approach for early-stage breast cancer than for prostate cancer (see Issue #110 for my take on the latter). Situated deep within the body, the prostate is harder to reach with the probes and it’s more difficult to identify all the tumors and their precise locations. But when treating breast cancer with freezing probes it sounds like it’s fairly easy to get where you want to go, kill only cancer cells, and get out with no damage to healthy tissue. Recent technological advances have resulted in smaller probes that are easier to manage. These are ideal for use in treating breast cancer. This new breast cancer treatment provides several advantages, including: No hospitalization required—the procedure can be performed safely in a doctor’s office or breast center. No anesthesia or sutures needed—this helps minimize any risk of infection or reactions to anesthetics, such as heart attack or stroke. No invasive surgery involved—the 5 to 15-minute procedure helps speed recovery time. No huge medical bills—cryoablation costs less than cancer surgery which may require lengthy hospital stays, anesthesia and prescription drugs. No pain or scar tissue—most patients report minimal pain with the procedures and have little to no scarring within six months. Now in all fairness, you must consider the less favorable aspect of cryoablation. In my opinion, it’s very minor, but I’ll mention it: It DOES involve the use of needles. Small and thin though they may be… some folks just can’t stomach them. You’ll need to endure a needle for the local anesthesia as well as the one used to administer the gases to freeze the tumor cells. I don’t know why this would bother a person any more than being cut with a scalpel, but some people might have a different take. U.S. researchers achieve similar results In 2010, Peter J. Littrup, M.D., reported encouraging results in a study of 13 breast cancer patients who refused surgery. He’s an interventional radiologist and director of imaging research and image-guided therapy for the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit, Michigan. In a Science Daily article, Dr. Littrup explained that researchers inserted several needle-like probes through the skin at even spaces, which delivered the cold gas directly to the tumor. A major difference between this study and prior methods of breast cryotherapy is the use of two or more probes to deliver the cold gas. Prior breast cryotherapy studies used only a single cryoprobe. Littrup said early researchers also suggested that breast tumors larger than 1.5 centimeters could not be adequately treated with cryoablation. But this assertion ignores the fact that men’s prostate glands—which average 5 centimeters—have been treated successfully with cryoablation for more than a decade! When treating prostates with cryoablation, doctors typically use more than six probes to transfer the deadly cold temperatures throughout the whole gland. Littrup’s team used this concept to attack breast tumors to ensure that the freezing gas saturated all areas of the women’s tumors. Many medical professionals are encouraged by results of cryotherapy as a breast cancer treatment. One of the most positive results from the Michigan study is that the patients didn’t have to undergo additional surgery, aimed at proving the cancer tumors had been treated completely, following multi-probe cryoablation. Although he stressed the need for more large studies on the use of this approach, Dr. Littrup said he believes cryotherapy will allow “accurate targeting of more difficult-to-see breast tumors.” The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 40,000 people will die from breast cancer in 2013. Cryoablation could be a promising new treatment to help cut that number down to size! American Cancer Society. 2013. Cancer facts and figures. Report available online at http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/ document/acspc-036845.pdf Boyles, S. 2010. Breast cancer treated by freezing tumors. WebMD. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20100316/breast-cancer-treated- by-freezing-tumors Irby, W. 2012. First breast cancer patients treated with minimally invasive IceSense3 Cryoablation procedure. Retrived fromhttp://www.icecure-medical.com/wp-content/uploads/ IceCure-News-Release-06-04-12.pdf National Cancer Institute. 2003. Cryosurgery in cancer treatment: Questions and answers. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/cryosurgery Society of Interventional Radiology (2010, March 20). Freezing out breast cancer. ScienceDaily. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sciendaily.com /releases/2010/03/100316101347.htm

Health Disclaimer: The information provided above is not intended as personal medical advice or instructions. You should not take any action affecting your health without consulting a qualified health professional. The authors and publishers of the information above are not doctors or health-caregivers. The authors and publishers believe the information to be accurate but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. There is some risk associated with ANY cancer treatment, and the reader should not act on the information above unless he or she is willing to assume the full risk.

Just say no to this dangerous test

X-rays are a major cause of cancer     We Americans are the most over-X-rayed people on earth, and the heavy doses of radiation we get are a major, and growing, cause of cancer. A British study suggests nearly one percent of all cancer cases in the United States (0.9 percent, to be exact) are due to diagnostic X-rays. That's a full 50 percent more than in the UK, where about 0.6 percent of cancers are caused by doctors taking pictures. The Brits don't subject patients to as many X-rays as we do.     Doctors, of course, would have us believe the benefits of X-rays outweigh the "small" increase in risk. One cancer out of a hundred may not sound like much, but just imagine if, say, a supplement like C0Q10 were found to be the cause of one percent of all cancers. It would be pulled off the shelves so fast your head would spin, and there would be no talk of balancing the dangers with the benefits (which happen to be enormous for this supplement).     What does radiation do to you? Let's take a look... Continued below... Flip Your Body's Energy Switch to "ON"     Without Caffeine, Sugar, Herbal Stimulants or that Tropical Vacation You Don't Have Time For...     If you're feeling tired and sluggish too often ... lacking your old pep and enthusiasm ... and relying on caffeine, energy drinks or sugary snacks to make it through the day...     There is now a PROVEN, NATURAL SOLUTION that takes care of all of your energy problems so you.... Wake up well-rested and hop out of bed Walk, bicycle, play tennis or golf with energy left over Wipe away brain fog and think clearly with sharper focus Increase your stamina and endurance throughout the day Feel more alive than you have in decades!     PLUS: Support balanced blood sugar and blood pressure... maintain a slim waistline... reignite your sex drive... and feel happier and healthier than you have in decades!     Learn More in this FREE Special Report We're in the middle of an X-ray epidemic     American medicine has gone X-ray crazy. The total amount of X-radiation we receive went upsix times from 1990 to 2006, according to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (2009, Report 160).     The New England Journal of Medicine says CT scans alone account for half the medical imaging dose we get. The article estimates that CT scans cause something like four out of every thousand cancers (Issue 357). The number of patients getting very high doses doubled every yearfrom 1996 to 2010, says the Journal of the American Medical Association.     A recent study of people who had cancer when they were children demonstrates the dangers of radiation. More than 95 percent of them suffered from chronic health problems by the time they were 45, including lung, hearing and heart problems.     You see, radiation damage is long term and shows up decades later. As Dr. Melissa Hudson, one of the study's authors, puts it, "Doctors may not be thinking about a heart-valve disorder in someone in his 30s, but if you had radiation to your chest at 10, this is something to think about."     The findings, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, are based on detailed physicals conducted on 1,700 adults who were treated for cancer at St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital in Memphis from ten to 40 years ago.     The researchers found that the parts of the body treated then are precisely the ones that are falling apart now. There's strong evidence that conventional cancer treatments accelerate the aging process of organs. The damage is profound, but it's not evident right away.     Adult survivors who received radiation to the brain as children suffer from thinking and memory problems typical of much older people. Those who were subjected to chest X-rays are likely to have heart-valve changes, including scarring and leaky valves. For this group of people whose average age was 33, "the health problems were considered striking" (the Wall Street Journal'schoice of words, not mine.)     These people were cancer survivors — you could argue their treatment was successful. But two points are worth making. One is that alternative treatments could have done the job gently, with no damage, instead of the lifetime health problems these young people now face. There are something like 395,000 childhood cancer survivors in our country. This is a vast tragedy.     The second point is that those of us who just receive routine diagnostic X-rays — not cancer treatment — face similar risks. Everyday X-rays and your risk of cancer     To be fair, the doses of radiation used to treat cancer patients are vastly great than those you receive in diagnostic X-rays. But X-ray damage is permanent and cumulative, so all those "little, routine" X-rays add up. Once the damage is done, it never goes away. And each time you have another X-ray, you add to it. Given the escalating use of X-rays in our medical system, the problem can only get worse.     When I was young, I had many chronic health problems myself and received tons of X-rays, so this is personal with me. The X-rays never turned up anything useful. The results were always negative. The problems I was trying to solve — chronic headaches, chronic body pain and fatigue, terrible GI-tract upset, unhealthy skin — were all eventually solved by alternative medicine.     My health problems were mostly due to the Standard American Diet (SAD), consisting of sugar and other refined carbs, hormone-and-drug-fed beef and chicken, heaven knows what preservatives and other chemicals, over-cooked vegetables, no fiber and a desperate lack of nutrients. X-rays were never going to identify any of those problems, but if you walk into a doctor's office with head pain or back pain or intestinal problems, you're probably going to get an X-ray.     I have plenty of company when it comes to being over-X-rayed. It's normal, and the consequences are a disaster. A study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute found, for example, that women who had had an average of 25 back X-rays had a 70 percent greater risk of dying of breast cancer than the general population. If you think nobody ever has 25 X-rays, ask a friend with long-term chronic pain. I had four back X-rays that I can remember, maybe more.     A recent study at the University of Hong Kong found that the risk of soft-tissue sarcoma is doubled if a person receives an amount of radiation equivalent to two CT head scans. One of the study's authors, Dr. Dino Samartzis, said, "The study has highlighted that even low to moderate levels of exposure are enough to cause genetic mutation."     Yup, I had a brain scan, too, for those mystery headaches I used to have, plus a full set of sinus X-rays.     In one recent year, 2008, a study found that 1.65 million children received a CT scan during a visit to an emergency room — five times as many as in 1994. A CT scan is equivalent to three to seven years of absorption of the amount of radiation we get naturally from the environment — all packed into a few minutes. A child exposed to just two or three scans faces three times the risk of developing brain cancer later in life.     A couple of years ago, TV star Dr. Mehmet Oz set off a mini panic when he noted that thyroid cancer is the fastest-growing cancer in women. As one of the causes he cited the harmful effects of radiation from sources like dental X-rays and mammograms.     Thyroid cancer is pretty rare. It accounts for only about 3 cancers out a hundred in women. It's also highly treatable and nearly everyone who gets it survives. But who needs any kind of cancer? Your dentist should X-ray no more than one or two of your teeth a year. If he's doing a full X-ray every year, get a new dentist.     One of the strongest voices against our X-ray mania was the late Dr. John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. and Professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He wrote six books on the effects of ionizing radiation on health, his last title being Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease. In this 700-page tome, he presented strong evidence that medical X-rays not only play an important role in causing half of all cancer cases, but also cause 60 percent of heart disease cases.     X-rays are not the only causes of these diseases (see my previous comments about diet) but they are major causes. Preventing cancer is the fine art of trimming your exposure a little bit here and a little bit there, wherever you have the opportunity. Never say, "It's just one little X-ray" — especially if you've already dozens during your life up to this point.     Sometimes you need an X-ray to diagnose a medical problem, but they should generally be avoided and resisted. This newsletter is on record against mammograms, the most common unnecessary (and largely useless) use of X-rays. Consider thermography. It's a better way to diagnose breast cancer.     When a doctor urges (or orders) an X-ray, ask whether an MRI or ultrasound is possible instead. These diagnostic tests involve no radiation at all. Refuse X-rays that are part of a general physical "just to make sure everything's all right." If you don't have any symptoms, why have an X-ray?     One thing that's under your control is your exposure to natural radiation from radon. Check your home and, if possible, your work place to ensure you're not being irradiated every day without even knowing it. As bad as medical X-rays are, radon accounts for an enormous portion of the public's exposure to radiation. 21,000 lung cancer deaths a year are attributed to radon, second only to smoking.

Health Disclaimer: The information provided above is not intended as personal medical advice or instructions. You should not take any action affecting your health without consulting a qualified health professional. The authors and publishers of the information above are not doctors or health-caregivers. The authors and publishers believe the information to be accurate but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. There is some risk associated with ANY cancer treatment, and the reader should not act on the information above unless he or she is willing to assume the full risk. Reminder: You're getting this email because you purchased a special report or book from us, or signed up for our free newsletter and gave us permission to contact you. From time to time we'll alert you to other important information about alternative cancer treatments. If you want to update or remove your email address, please scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the appropriate link. We're an online cancer bookstore offering Outsmart Your Cancer, Cancer Step Outside the Box, Stop Cancer Before It Starts, Natural Cancer Remedies that Work, Adios-Cancer, Cancer Breakthrough USA, Missing Ingredient For Good Health, German Cancer Breakthrough, How to Cure Almost Any Cancer for $5.15 a Day and Keep Your Gallbladder!