Movie star smile not such a good idea

Whitening your teeth is not safe and harmless     So, you've decided to seek the glamour of a movie star…     Years of drinking coffee, tea, or other dark colored beverages — or even smoking — have darkened your teeth, and spurred the urge to get them whitened.     According to the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry, it's the single most requested cosmetic dental procedure by people of all ages… and the numbers are growing by a staggering 25.1% a year. The Academy also notes that the number of whitening and bleaching procedures has increased more than 300% during the 5 years from 2002 to 2007.1     So it's popular, for sure. But is it good for your health? We looked into it. . . Continued below. . . Drink This and Cancer Comes Pouring Out of Your Body     "If I could pick only one treatment to cure my cancer, this would be it," says a top expert on alternative cancer treatments.     Research conducted by a scientist at the Detroit Institute of Cancer Research showed this is one of the world's most powerful cancer cures. Even the mainstream National Cancer Institute confirmed that this do-it-yourself treatment kills cancer cells. Then they buried the research.     Personally, I've been writing about cancer treatments for almost seven years. Out of nearly 400 that I've investigated, I haven't found an at-home treatment that's better.     In fact, it's likely that NO treatment is better, even the ones provided by top alternative cancer doctors. Yet you can purchase this remarkable breakthrough over-the-counter, without a prescription.     It worked for Robert, age 54, who had late stage stomach cancer. His doctors told him he didn't have chance. The most they could do was buy him a little time, using four aggressive chemotherapy drugs PLUS radiation — a deadly, toxic, last-ditch treatment.     INSTEAD Robert used this non-toxic liquid and was completely cancer-free within months. The amazed doctor was forced to admit Robert's cancer was "in remission." Two years later, he was still cancer-free.     Click here and watch an important video presentation about this discovery. Two processes for whitening your teeth      A "whitening" process can work in one of two ways… It can bleach the tooth, meaning it actually changes your natural tooth color. Bleaching products contain peroxides that help remove both deep and surface stains. Non-bleaching products contain agents that help remove surface stains only — by either physical or chemical action.      Whiteners can either be administered by dentists or purchased over the counter (OTC).     Do-it-yourself OTC whiteners, as you might assume, are a lot less expensive, but require more effort. They consist of very thin, almost invisible, strips coated with a peroxide-based gel. You apply these strips for 30 minutes twice daily over the course of two weeks. Final results last about four months. These strips contain 10 percent carbamide peroxide.     Professionally administered whiteners are the quickest route to whiter teeth, and are sometimes combined with heat, light or laser treatment. You can get dramatic results during a single one-hour appointment, though it's often repeated several times.     This kind uses a hydrogen peroxide solution ranging from 15 to 35 percent. The practitioner protects your gum tissues with a rubber dam, or a protective gel.     There are also whitening toothpastes available on the market. They contain polishing or chemical agents (instead of bleaches) to remove surface stains. The ADA 'Seal of Acceptance' — should you trust it?     All whitening products carrying the American Dental Association (ADA) Seal of Acceptance contain 35 percent hydrogen peroxide. However, there is no requirement demanding this concentration.     In water, carbamide peroxide breaks down into hydrogen peroxide and urea. Other ingredients may include glycerin, carbopol, sodium hydroxide, and flavoring agents.     A couple things to note here…     First, the ADA is reluctant to give its seal of approval to do-it-yourself OTC products. The association's viewpoint is that only dentists should administer tooth whiteners — "because professional consultation is important to the procedure's safety and effectiveness".     Their "Seal of Acceptance" should perhaps make you as a consumer just a bit skeptical when coming from an organization that has been promoting poisons like mercury fillings and fluoride for more than half a century. We published our opinion on their shenanigans in a Special Report called The Secret Poison in Your Mouth. Big dangers, little dangers…     According to the ADA, the most common side effects from either hydrogen or carbaminde peroxide are tooth sensitivity and gum irritation.     Tooth sensitivity is likely to occur mostly during the early stages of bleaching… and tissue irritation is often from a poorly-fitting tray that holds the whitener. Both are said to be temporary and to cease after treatment.     On rare occasions though, irreversible tooth damage has been reported. And the treatment is often ill advised for patients with many fillings, crowns, or very dark stains.     In sum, this is the ADA position: There have been a few problems, mostly minor, and the procedure is generally safe. As you may have guessed, there are other opinions.     Drugs.com advises that all medicines may cause side effects — and while whiteners typically cause no side effects, potential severe side effects are possible with carbamide peroxide solutions — rashes, hives, itching, breathing difficulties, chest tightness, and swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue.     But wait… it may be worse than that. Not to imply that breathing difficulties, chest tightness, or uncontrolled swelling or hives are minor… Britain warns of the dangers of whiteners     It seems to have been kept hush-hush in the States, but four years ago, Britain warned all dentists and beauty salons in Gateshead of potential dangers from tooth whitening products… after discovering that many of these products contain dangerous chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide and carbamide peroxide far in excess of permitted levels.     That level in the UK is only 0.1%. But some products were found to have levels as high as 10.0% -- a staggering 100 times the permitted level. Another product was found to be 60 times the permitted level.     Officials are very concerned about finding products that breach safety guidelines by 60 to 100 times. It's a cosmetic, not a drug. . .so they say     Meanwhile, in the United States, tooth whiteners are classified as a "cosmetic", not as a drug (even though they contain chemicals), and are therefore unregulated. So it's "buyer beware".     Dentist Martin Fallowfield — spokesperson from the British Dental Association — warns that some home tooth whitener kits contain the same acid used to disinfect swimming pools, chlorine dioxide.     And, it's not always listed on the label.     He says the chemicals destroy your tooth's protective enamel… they obtain their whitening effect by etching your tooth's surface.     This causes sensitive teeth, and in extreme cases can lead to tooth loss. It can also lead to chemical burns on your gums (furthering your risk of tooth loss).     Ironically, it also can cause further discoloration due to the destruction of your protective enamel, making those teeth more easily stained by food or drink.     Furthermore, if the mouth guard containing the bleach fits poorly, your gums will be exposed for an extended time… causing soft tissue burns, irreversible gum recession, tooth decay and sensitivity.     If you swallow the chemical while the trays are in your mouth — which is very easy to do — you can also burn your throat, stomach and gut.     Whitening toothpastes may seem like harmless alternatives to the procedures I've just described. But they often use abrasive ingredients such as sand to polish stains off. They're less risky in one way — no chemical burns or gum recession — but they can damage teeth. New warnings about long-term damage to teeth     Unfortunately, no one quite knows the long-term effects of the popular bleaching products, regardless of where they're administered.     Andrew Eder, professor of restorative dentistry and dental education at UCL Eastman Dental Institute (UK), says, "Teeth are porous, so whatever you put on the enamel, and especially on the deeper dentine, may have an effect deep inside the tooth over many years."2     He suggests using products short term only, never on an ongoing basis — and only if you feel you must. On top of all the other problems, whiteners may cause cancer     In 2004, WebMD ran an article suggesting the possibility of tooth whitening products leading to oral cancer.     They pointed to Georgetown University Hospital researchers who say the active ingredient in popular whiteners may be the reason two young people in their 20s with no other markers for cancer developed advanced tongue cancer. This is very speculative, and one case doesn't make a conclusion.     But whiteners are one of several possible explanations for an increase in oral cancers among young people. Under normal circumstances, almost all victims of oral cancers are older folks with bad habits that clearly contributed to their disease.     Ninety percent of oral cancers strike people over age 45 who are long term smokers or drinkers.     But still, some doctors question whether the blame should be pointed at tooth whiteners or to some other exposure.     Bruce Davidson, MD, FACS, chairman of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery at the Georgetown hospital, suggests it may be linked to the carbamide peroxide — one-third of which is composed of hydrogen peroxide. Further, carbamide peroxide changes into hydrogen peroxide when used as a whitener.     Peroxide was shown to promote cancer growth inside the cheeks of rodents and to cause GI cancers when ingested. I found no reports of human testing on this.     So, the theory goes that when hydrogen peroxide gel leaks from the trays into your mouth, it releases free radicals. At least one doctor says, "Think twice"     Dr. Davidson told WebMD, "If I was in the market for teeth whitening, I'd think twice about it."3     Davidson reported at the 6th International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer the cases of two patients who developed advanced tongue cancer decades earlier than would be normal… after repeatedly using tooth whitening products.     Both patients drank only occasionally. One was a light smoker; the other didn't smoke at all.     They were part of a group of 19 oral cancer patients (of all ages) studied by Davidson's team of head and neck cancer surgeons.     Two of the six patients who developed oral cancer prior to age 40 used tooth whiteners. And both had more advanced cancer than the others, despite not smoking or drinking more heavily. A middle aged man with tongue cancer also used tooth whitening polish. But the others did not use any bleaching products. The medical community's opinion...?     Terry Day, MD and director of head and neck oncologic surgery at Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina and spokesperson for the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, says we should pay attention to this study… because of the huge spike in consumers seeking a movie star smile, and the rise in oral cancers in young people, especially cancer of the tongue.     However, the small size of the study doesn't provide enough support for a final conclusion that tooth whiteners are carcinogenic.     Davidson's study is believed to be the first to consider a link between cancer and tooth whiteners.     Meanwhile, the ADA says there's no evidence that tooth whiteners increase cancer risk or cause other problems (though they admit that some people do abuse them).     Of course, dentists have much to gain if whiteners can be proclaimed as "safe", given the huge boon in their whitening cosmetic dentistry business.     Whiteners applied by dentists cost upwards of $200. A customized tray is used, theoretically reducing the risk of hydrogen peroxide leakage. But Davidson reports studies that show that less than 50% of the whitener is still in the tray one hour after application, representing significant leakage. It's a clear hint that customers are ingesting the stuff. My recommendation…?     Until we get more data indicating whether or not whiteners are definitively linked to oral cancer, I'm inclined to stick to my toothbrush and organic toothpaste. Just for the record, my dentist advised me against whiteners long ago because of the damage they do to the enamel, and I've followed his advice. I just live with my yellowed, old-dude teeth.     Your addiction to glamour could have unwanted consequences — and it may be years before we can say for sure.     Meanwhile, industrial society keeps producing other wonders. Our last issue wrote about one of them — a prostate cancer treatment for which you need the most expensive medical machine ever made, one that requires a building as large as a football field. If you missed this doozy, we're repeating it again just below. You Can Now Treat Prostate Cancer with the Most Expensive Medical Device in the History of the World     If you've heard that proton therapy is the magic bullet for prostate cancer, be warned: There's a lot of money tied up in this therapy, but not a lot of research. That's a scary combination for any health treatment. Let's look at the facts. . . Continued below. . . Toxic chemical condemned 8 men to die of prostate cancer . . .but one of them escaped. Here's how he did it!     John S. watched helplessly as 7 of his Vietnam platoon buddies died of prostate cancer, one by one. They were exposed to chemicals during the war that caused them to get cancer when they reached middle age. Then, in 2002, John found out it was his turn. He got opinions from three different doctors and they all told him the same thing: he'd need a miracle to survive.     John found the miracle he needed. Four years after his diagnosis, he told us, "I am healthy and happy with no symptoms of the disease." He actually wishes he'd gotten the disease sooner so he could have told his Army buddies this secret. It might have saved their lives.     We're ALL exposed every day to chemicals similar to the ones that killed these veterans. A man is just about certain to get prostate cancer if he lives long enough. That means John's life-saving secret is big news for men everywhere. Click here and keep reading. . . This treatment definitely has some advantages     Proton therapy isn't even a new breakthrough, although the public didn't get interested till recently.     The therapy was initially prompted by Dr. James Slater of Massachusetts General, who first started harvesting protons from a Harvard cyclotron in the early 1960s. Dr. Slater had been disheartened by the side effects of radiation treatment (using X-rays) and has since devoted most of his professional life to bringing proton-based treatments to medical facilities.     Proton therapy itself is fairly simple. It uses a beam of protons to inject a tumor with radiation. Protons are one of the three main particles that make up atoms (the other two are electrons and neutrons). Protons have a positive charge while electrons have a negative charge.     Like X-rays, protons wreck the genetic makeup of a tumor. More importantly, proton therapy is much more precise than other radiation therapies, but without the side effects.     For example, when a patient undergoes X-ray treatment, tissues surrounding the tumor site are easily destroyed. The side-effects and resulting sickness can be overwhelming.     But in proton therapy, the stream of charged particles can be tailored to the contours of the tumor, without affecting any tissues except the tumor.     Unfortunately (and like too many things in the medical industry), proton therapy suffers from a money bias. Construction costs for a proton-beam generator can top $200 million, making it the most expensive medical device ever invented.     One of the reasons the treatment is so expensive is that protons aren't exactly easy to harvest. For proton therapy, protons must be stripped from hydrogen atoms and then moved into a stream that is nearly as fast as the speed of light.     The device that makes this possible weighs around 220 tons and must be housed in a structure at least the size of a football field. So, beyond the cost of the machine itself come considerable construction expenses for any hospital toying with the idea of offering this treatment. But here's the worst problem of all. . .     Proton therapy involves spending a stupefying amount of money on something that doesn't necessarily work better than other prostate cancer treatments. Anthony Zietman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and past president of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, has gone on record saying proton therapy is a very good treatment for prostates, but "It just doesn't appear to be superior treatment."     In the world of peer-reviewed journals, they won't be able to say whether proton therapy deserves all the rave reviews it's gotten until somebody puts together a decade-long, randomized trial to see which treatments have the best outcome overall.     In the meantime, the Internet has become a serious hindrance to spreading accurate information about this treatment. Loads of blogs and websites run by men who had success with their own proton treatment laud the benefits of proton therapy. I don't deny that they have good intentions. Many of these enthusiastic Internet writers feel proton therapy was the best and only cure for their prostate cancers.     Plus, men love the fact that's it's non-invasive. Who wouldn't? After all, few things shake a man's pride like the idea of losing bladder function or becoming impotent. A man's well-being after conventional radiation or surgery can be very poor indeed.     But the buzz reminds me of prime-time commercials from the pharmaceutical industry (although more honest, I hope). When you see a commercial for the latest and greatest pill, featuring happy people evangelizing a drug, it's hard not to wonder if it might work for you.     Just remember, the bloggers are comparing proton therapy to conventional radiation and surgery. To be fair, it IS an improvement — a very expensive one. But why go there at all?     The problem in this case is that too many websites are written by guys who aren't aware of the costs-versus-benefits of this treatment, much less the benefits of alternative cancer treatments. They're excited by the high-level technology — the ultimate power tool for guys — and they give false hope to millions of men searching the Internet for legitimate answers.     The bias for proton therapy technology continues to grow with time, making it hard to put together any kind of a reliable study on outcomes. Researchers are finding that men who went in thinking proton treatment was superior, who then have unexpected and unnecessary side effects, still advocate proton therapy as the best choice they could have made.     Marketers call it "post-purchase dissonance." When people have made an important choice, they have to convince themselves they did the right thing. If the purchase is a let-down, some people go into denial and still insist they made a good choice.     And remember, as with most medical therapies these days, the advice you get from doctors is subject to a ton of bias. Dr. Zietman, while being interviewed for an article in Men's Health last year, said, "In the absence of knowledge, anything goes. Surgeons recommend their favorite surgery. Radiation oncologists recommend their favorite form of radiation."     It follows that oncologists smitten with cool technology — and with making money — recommend proton therapy. Money-driven healthcare, the vampire that's sucking the life out of our country     What's obvious here is that the least expensive option for treating early-stage prostate cancer rarely gets lip service from the experts. Officially, it's called "active surveillance." You may know it as "watchful waiting."     Watchful waiting boils down to closely monitoring a patient and watching for any signs of growth in his cancer. If there's no growth, there's no treatment. If there is growth, the patient gets treated. Most prostate tumors are slow-growing. There's no pressing need to take action. And there are dozens of safe nutrients, foods and herbal remedies a man can use to control or eliminate prostate tumors without resorting to radiation, chemotherapy and surgery at all. I gave readers my take on all this in my Special Report, Don't Touch My Prostate.     Proton treatment sounds to me like technology-driven medicine gone crazy. Frightened people with cancer are willing to buy into any kind of nonsense recommended by the men in white coats, and of course we all get handed the bill.     Medical care is the single biggest expense driving the country into bankruptcy and potential social and political collapse. Meanwhile, to the doctors and industrialists meting out the treatments, there are massive profits to be had treating prostate cancer with protons.     Proton therapy isn't worthless. Far from it. It actually shows more reliable promise for treating brain, eye, and spinal cord tumors, as well as certain kinds of tumors in children.     But treating something like childhood cancers requires multiple, lengthy sessions and insurance companies are loath to cover it.     Prostate patients, on the other hand, are in and out in 20 minutes and need fewer total treatments. Medicare and most insurance companies cover the cost without hassle. And there are a lot of prostate cancer cases to funnel through the system.     It's healthcare dictated by money, which is the worst kind.     I should point out that even with the heavy emphasis on proton therapy as a miracle cure, it's hard to come by. Only 1% of radiation oncologists in the U.S. have experience in proton therapy. And right now, there are only nine proton centers in operation (though eight more are in development, which shows how the medical industry is responding to demand). Sometimes the best healthcare means bucking the trends     Conclusive studies are a long way off. But for now, the best information we can find is that proton treatment is not much better than standard radiation treatment — just more expensive and more techno-fancy.     I admit, it's hard to beat claims like those made by Loma Linda Medical Center on their website's "Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer" page: "More accurate, non-invasive, painless, provided in an outpatient setting, little impact on energy level, and requires no recovery."     But don't be so sure it's a good choice. There are many, many easy alternative treatments I'd try first.

The Secret of People Who Don't Get Cancer

The secret to curing cancer:

You've been throwing it in the trash!

    In 1921, a British doctor discovered that a remote tribal people was almost totally cancer-free. But when members of this tribe move away from their native land and change their diet, they get cancer just like anyone else.

    It's all thanks to a food most of us throw away as waste!

    Click here now and watch a new video presentation about this cancer breakthrough Go To "Cancer Step Outside The Box".

    One cancer expert calls this overlooked food "the key to curing AND preventing cancer" — and you can benefit NOW -- without going to a doctor or buying expensive supplements.

    This little throwaway food tastes great. Bill Clinton (of all people) eats it regularly, and so can you.

    Click here now to watch the video Go To "Cancer Step Outside The Box"!

Does this natural cancer cure cause cancer?

Natural Cancer Cure Charged with Causing Cancer!     There's a debate raging about the healing properties of capsaicin that's hotter than the spice itself.     Capsaicin, the component in chile peppers that gives them their spice, has been named as a possible trigger for skin cancer.     Yet, this is the same capsaicin that's widely known to bring about cell death for a variety of cancers. What's more, capsaicin is widely consumed in foods with chile peppers all over the world — not to mention being a common ingredient in topical creams for pain relief.     And now people are saying it might cause a certain type of cancer. Let's take a look. . . Continued below. . . Toxic chemical condemned 8 men to die of prostate cancer . . .but one of them escaped. Here's how he did it!     John S. watched helplessly as 7 of his Vietnam platoon buddies died of prostate cancer, one by one. They were exposed to chemicals during the war that caused them to get cancer when they reached middle age. Then, in 2002, John found out it was his turn. He got opinions from three different doctors and they all told him the same thing: he'd need a miracle to survive.     John found the miracle he needed. Four years after his diagnosis, he told us, "I am healthy and happy with no symptoms of the disease." He actually wishes he'd gotten the disease sooner so he could have told his Army buddies this secret. It might have saved their lives.     We're ALL exposed every day to chemicals similar to the ones that killed these veterans. A man is just about certain to get prostate cancer if he lives long enough. That means John's life-saving secret is big news for men everywhere. Click here and keep reading. . . First off, this spicy pepper component is a known cancer killer     I've reported on the value of capsaicin before. In Issue 23 of our newsletter, I talked about the power of this nutrient in helping heal prostate cancer. It's been shown to make prostate cancer cells disintegrate, in a study by researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Centers, along with UCLA Medical School. They showed capsaicin forced 80 percent of human prostate cancer cells into apoptosis (cell death).     One of the scientists involved in the study at the time, Sören Lehmann, M.D., Ph.D., said capsaicin "…also dramatically slowed the development of prostate tumors formed by those human cell lines grown in mouse models."     In another study, done by the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, capsaicin was shown to force pancreatic cancer cells in mice to self-destruct.     Capsaicin has been shown to slow the growth of prostate tumors while lowering the cancer cell production of PSA, or prostate specific antigen. This is pretty important to men over age 50 whose doctors often make them undergo the PSA test to diagnose prostate cancer. (Side note: it's not a very reliable test, but most doctors still insist on it. Capsaicin can help you impress your doctor by reducing high PSA levels.) Co-carginogen?     Now comes this dubious claim that capsaicin helps bring about skin cancer.     The claim surfaced from a study conducted by the Hormel Institute at the University of Minnesota, where lead researcher and professor Ann Bode went on record saying it's possible that capsaicin increases skin cancer risk. She points out concerns that the natural compound, when used in over-the-counter topical pain creams, could cause problems.     Please note she's NOT referring to capsaicin taken internally, as in food or supplements. She's referring only to topical use, and only to skin cancer.     Bode and her research team published their study in the journal Cancer Research. They stated that capsaicin, when applied topically to the skin of mice, actually induced tumors and elevated levels of an inflammatory enzyme (cyclooxygenase-2).     The molecular mechanisms of capsaicin as a cancer-promoter are unclear, and controversial to boot. The charge that capsaicin acts as a carcinogen at the tumor promotion stage comes from its ability to stimulate inflammation. Bode speculates that inflammation caused by capsaicin might be the link to the increase in tumors (as opposed to the spice itself).     But her whole claim is overblown and highly doubtful. Get this: The mice that got cancer were given capsaicin mixed with other substances known to be carcinogens. A control group of mice given ONLY capsaicin did NOT get skin cancer. Here's what we know for sure     Capsaicin kills cancer cells thanks to a family connection. It belongs to a family of molecules called the vanilloids which bind to proteins in the cancer cell mitochondria. This triggers apoptosis (natural cell death) and does so without hurting healthy cells.     When applied to the skin, it's believed that capsaicin lessens pain by temporarily disabling a neurotransmitter called substance P that sends pain signals to the brain. It effectively reduces the nervous system's sensitivity to pain.     In fact, capsaicin has been shown to be quite useful in reducing pain from cancer treatment. A 1997 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology cited a study on cancer patients who had long-term neuropathic pain after surgery. After eight weeks of applying capsaicin topical cream to pain sites, they experienced 53 percent pain reduction (compared to only 17 percent pain reduction from a placebo cream).     The Hormel Institute study itself stops way short of saying topical capsaicin pain cream may be related to skin cancer. It says "capsaicin alone does not act as a carcinogen." Amen to that. In the Hormel study, capsaicin had lots of help.     Consider this: Mice in the Hormel Institute study received doses of capsaicin mixed with DMBA (7,12-dimetylbenz(a) anthracene) and TPA (12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate) on their skin. Both DMBA and TPA are known to be cancer-generating, tumor-promoting drugs. Those mice were guaranteed to get tumors. They were administered these substances with the intent of causing skin tumors.     There was a control group of mice treated with capsaicin only. Those mice did not develop skin tumors.     And this is what's most important as far as I'm concerned: The spice has been shown to be safe in animal studies where it's administered intravenously. So at least we know it's not a carcinogen when introduced inside the body. It's only application to the skin, for pain relief, that poses a possible problem. If you're really worried about it, don't use it on your skin.     Just to make my position clear: I believe capsaicin is a safe, natural food to prevent AND cure cancer when taken as food or supplements. Other uses for capsaicin     Capsaicin is a seriously powerful compound with a variety of uses besides cancer treatment and prevention. It can improve circulation, treat psoriasis, and lessen the pain from cluster headaches. One small study even showed improved hair growth for alopecia patients when capsaicin was taken in conjunction with isoflavone.     New research is even hinting capsaicin has value as a weight loss tool. According to a meta-analysis from Purdue University, the spice has potential in terms of reducing appetite and burning up calories.     And let me add, it's certainly not a harmless compound. Capsaicin is used in pepper sprays meant for personal defense. It's a chemical agent in riot control. It's also used to deter mammalian pests like squirrels from ravaging crops, and in household and garden insect repellents.     In spray form, capsaicin is meant to be painful. If it comes in contact with your eyes or any mucous membranes, you're going to feel pain. In large quantities — far more than you could ever eat in spicy food -- it can even cause death. You can't rely on the media to interpret science     What's clear is that the media bungled the message. Who knows how it started — perhaps a press release that misinterpreted the study data from the get-go. Dr. Paul Bosland, director of the Chile Pepper Institute at New Mexico State University, said it best: "…it serves to illustrate the ignorance of many wire service stories that deal with science."     Meanwhile, there's another food ingredient that prevents cancer. In fact, it can cut your lifetime danger of getting cancer by about half! If you missed this important story in the last issue, scroll down and see it now. Ten-cent Pill Cuts Your Risk of Cancer in Half     Dozens of scientists have produced study results to confirm that a simple mineral found in the dirt is a powerful, all-natural answer to cancer. I just checked on the Internet and you can easily get it in supplement form for about ten cents a pill.     Its cancer-fighting power is truly awesome. If you take it regularly for years you can expect your danger of getting cancer to go down by about half. But, as usual, the medical establishment has gone all out to squash the evidence. Let's take a look. . . Continued below. . . End Those "Senior Moments" For Good!     Can't find your car keys for the umpteenth time? Misplace your glasses again? Don't remember names or faces very well? Ever walk into a room and go blank about why you're there?     Usually we laugh it off as just another "senior moment."     There's no question that small lapses in memory and concentration can happen naturally as you get older. They're embarrassing. They're frustrating.     But they're certainly no joke.     The mental lapses you laugh off today might be red alerts of serious brain changes that can steal away your memory and independence tomorrow.     Click here to learn how to supercharge your brain and protect your memory...     Selenium is one of the basic elements you may have learned about in chemistry or physics class. It's atomic number 34 on the periodic chart. And because it's a common element, it's just about the cheapest anti-cancer pill you can buy. You could say it's dirt cheap.     If you know anything about alternative health, selenium is probably a household word to you. You know it as a powerful antioxidant that helps purge your body of harmful, cell-damaging substances.     In his 1994 book Alternatives in Cancer Therapy, author and radio host Ross Pelton labeled selenium as "possibly the most powerful anticancer nutrient there is." I wouldn't go that far, but there's no question every single person reading this should take a selenium supplement or make sure to eat selenium-rich foods.     Just a quick glance at the scientific studies on this element will show why some have come to regard selenium as a powerhouse protector… Could these successes be just a fluke?     In the book Selenium: One Cancer Answer, nutritionist Chris Barr said the first medical application of selenium was documented by Dr. August von Wasserman.     Dr. Wasserman discovered in 1911 that selenite injected into mouse cancer tumors caused them to decompose.     Four years later, Dr. C.H. Walker and Dr. F. Klein caused small lingual (tongue) tumors in cancer patients to shrink and disappear. And by no means was that the end of the research on selenium's anti-cancer effects…     Consider some highlights in selenium's long history as a cancer warrior: 1935—study on breast cancer patients treated with selenium published in the British Medical Journal 1940—Dr. Emmanuel Revici pioneers the use of organic selenium in cancer patients (selenium derived from plant sources) to reduce possible toxicity associated with inorganic forms 1949—Drs. Clayton and Baumann first label selenium as a cancer preventative in the medical journal Cancer Research. 1957—Dr. Klaus Schwarz at the National Institutes of Health identifies selenium as an essential nutrient for life. 1970—Studies conducted by Dr. Gerhard Schrauzer, M.D., Ph.D. produced a 70 percent reduction in breast cancer by adding trace amounts of selenium to the diet. Schrauzer declared that 200 mcg of daily selenium supplements would dramatically reduce the cancer rate. 1980s—Dr. Larry Clark, Ph.D. conducted a long-term, double-blind study using 200 mcg daily of selenium on cancer patients; some 10 years later Dr. Clark reported that — compared to the control group --the supplemented group experienced: 63 percent reduction in prostate cancer 57 percent reduction in colon cancer 48 percent reduction in lung cancer 50+ percent reduction in all cancers 1990s—A1996 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed how effective selenium can be in preventing cancer. Dr. Larry Clark of the University of Arizona studied 1,300 older persons and found a 42 percent reduction in cancer among those taking 200 mcg of selenium daily for about seven years compared to those given a placebo. What's more, cancer deaths for those taking selenium were cut almost in half! 2000s—A study of over 1000 healthy males published in the May 2004 Journal of the National Cancer Institute showed that men with high blood levels of selenium were about half as likely to develop advanced prostate cancer as men with lower selenium levels.     And this is just a sample of the positive health results achieved by taking selenium! But don't think for one minute the medical community jumped for joy at hearing this news… The typical knee-jerk reaction from the medical establishment     Remember the amazing cancer reductions JAMA reported from Dr. Clark's 1980s studies mentioned above? Well, JAMA also published a letter from a medical doctor who criticized the results—simply because Dr. Clark didn't use a synthetic form of selenium rather than a plant-sourced form!     According to Chris Barr, Dr. Peter Greenwald—then Director of Cancer Prevention for the National Cancer Institute (NCI)—downplayed the study results telling reporters "it's just one study" and "we don't recommend supplements."     NCI later decided to institute a large-scale cancer trial with selenium. It is scheduled for completion and publication by 2016. But Barr said he was certain it wouldn't achieve good results. Why?     Because instead of using a type of selenium derived from whole foods, NCI is using a pharmaceutically prepared variety that is very low in antioxidant power!     The NCI actually chose to abandon the study in 2009—citing no evidence that synthetic selenium reduced cancer. We recommend selenium supplements whose labels say they are derived from plants or yeast, or that say "selenomethionine," a form of selenium derived from soybeans. According to Barr, sodium selenite and sodium selenate are inferior forms of selenium, not derived from plant sources.     But you'd best believe NCI wasn't the only mainstream medical institution trying to discredit selenium as a potential cancer killer… The FDA was forced to admit it goofed!     Some studies claimed to prove that selenium is a dangerous toxin that CAUSES cancer! Could it be true?     Barr discussed the few incidents and summed them up as follows: A French cancer study reporting deaths related to selenium use were due to administration of excessive doses. A 1937 American study found that 2 milligrams of sodium selenite per kilogram of body weight could be lethal. This too represents an excessive amount. The recommended therapeutic dose of selenium is 200 mcg per day. A microgram is one-thousandth of a milligram. The 2 milligrams cited in the 1937 study is ten times the recommended dose. A 1943 Food and Drug Administration study fed rats a sulfide form of selenium which also contained a pesticide. Because the amounts were more than DOUBLE the amount known to be toxic—it's little wonder the selenium caused liver tumors in the rats! But get this: In 1957 the FDA declared that selenium is an essential life nutrient. What's more,the FDA came clean and admitted in two official documents that its own 1943 study was flawed!     The bulk of scientific studies demonstrate that boosting selenium intake also boosts your immune system. By the same token, selenium deficiency can leave you wide open to various forms of cancer.     In addition to preventing the onset of disease, selenium can also slow cancer progression and enhance the effectiveness of chemotherapy and radiation treatments!     You can supplement your daily selenium intake but the best form is ingested from whole foods.     Some of the richest food sources of selenium (in alphabetical order) include: Brazil nuts (that's what I eat — very rich in selenium) Cod fish Eggs (don't worry about cholesterol; eating eggs doesn't increase your cholesterol levels) Oatmeal Tuna Turkey Sunflower seeds     So if you want to protect your body from free radical damage—and stop cancer dead in its tracks—get more organic selenium in your diet. It could wind up being one science lesson that saves your life!

The Illegal Cure Ronald Reagan used for his Cancer

President Reagan refused America's outdated cancer treatments Instead, like other celebrities and European royalty, President Reagan went to Germany to cure his cancer Americans would be shocked if they knew that President Reagan, while still in the White House, turned his back on American cancer treatments. He secretly went to a German cancer clinic, got rid of his cancer, and lived another 19 years. Why did he choose Germany? Because German cancer doctors are the best — thanks to breakthrough treatments the American cancer establishment calls “quackery.” No wonder President Reagan and other celebrities such as Liz Taylor, Suzanne Somers, Anthony Quinn, and European royalty chose Germany’s kinder, gentler treatments. Surprisingly, these treatments cost 10 cents on the dollar compared to America’s dreadful treatments. As one of Germany’s top doctors said, “Doctors give chemo, chemo, chemo, and patients die, die, die.” That describes American cancer treatments. German doctors use a whole new way with NO hair loss, NO nausea, and NO disfiguring surgeries. Click here for photographic proof of the German cancer breakthrough You’ll see a complete description of the breakthrough including three astonishing "before and after" photos of a woman who said “NO!” to surgery that would’ve disfigured her face. She was completely cured without chemotherapy or surgery. Click here and see for yourself exactly what the German cancer breakthrough is, why it works so well, and where the celebrities go to get rid of their cancer.

The World's ONLY Diabetes Cure Dear Reader, Doctors and drug companies want you to believe that medical intervention is the only choice people with diabetes have. But that's baloney -- and I'll prove it to you. For example... - Eating a daily serving of beans can dramatically lower your need for diabetes meds and/or insulin. - Two natural, zero-calorie sweeteners are perfectly fine for all diabetics -- (one is 100 times sweeter than table sugar, but won't raise your blood sugar level or increase your weight!). - Whole grains will improve your blood sugar much better than fresh vegetables! - A 20-minute daily walk lengthens the life of a diabetic by an average of 39%! Reversing diabetes is just this easy! Little lifestyle changes like these can make HUGE improvements in diabetes -- and can actually cure Type 2 and prediabetes. That's right, I said cure. This means you can... - Quit sticking your fingers with needles and testing your blood sugar - Discontinue all those sickening, fattening drugs - Stop feeling guilty about food and your weight - End your worries about diabetic heart attack ... amputations ... or blindness. The 30-Day Diabetes Cure makes it "easy as pie!" Here's how our ingenious 30-day plan works... Every day, you simply add one diabetes-healing tip -- or subtract a diabetes-hurting habit to you normal activities. At the end of 30 days, you'll be living a Diabetes Healing Lifestyle -- without turning your life upside-down. Most people experience a dramatic improvement in their condition simply by following our proven plan. - Type 2s are able to have their dose of meds dramatically reduced -- or completely withdrawn! - Type 1s can have their insulin dose slashed (by up to 80%!). And people with prediabetes can return to a normal, drug-free life in a matter of days! Click here to view some amazing video testimonials of real people who have conquered diabetes with The 30-Day Diabetes Cure. Drugs will never give you these results! In fact, as long as you take those diabetes drugs, you will never be able to get off them -- and you will always have diabetes. There has never been an instance of these drugs curing a single diabetes patient so he/she could discontinue them. Not one! But now you have real hope! Wouldn't it be great to kick diabetes out of your life like this? Wouldn't it feel wonderful to return to a "normal" life again? The 30-Day Diabetes Cure can give you or a loved one a "second chance." Here's your opportunity to change the direction your health is headed in... Away from the misery and suffering that await all diabetics -- and toward a future filled with health, happiness and increased longevity. It won't cost you a penny to discover how Click here to learn more... Copyright 2010

New type of breast cancer is mostly hype

Alarming New Trend in Breast Cancer
Diagnoses — Should You Believe the Hype?

By Carol Parks, Contributing Editor

    Imagine… you go in for your regular mammogram and are assured — happily — that you do not have breast cancer.

    But — your doctor claims — you do have a kind of cancer referred to as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)… also called "stage zero" cancer. Which means irregular cells are lodged in one or more of your breast ducts — the "highways" connecting the milk-producing lobes to your nipples. But they have not escaped to invade the other breast tissue. Yet.



    Will they ever? Maybe… maybe not. Read on…


Continued below. . .

Breast Cancer Breakthrough BANNED! U.S. Government Blocks Release of Doctor's Life-Saving Book     A mammoth discovery is wiping out most breast tumors better than anything seen yet in modern medicine. It makes surgery, radiation and chemotherapy look like something from the Dark Ages.     A Cornell-educated doctor followed more than 25 years of case studies and PROVED this treatment can cure breast cancer. With the discovery I'm going to tell you about, almost every woman makes it and without losing a breast to surgery or taking any toxic chemicals. Even those with late stage cancer!     You've got to include this treatment if you want to have any REAL hope of defeating breast cancer. Click here now and watch a new presentation about this important discovery…

    Being diagnosed with DCIS is complicated, annoying… and horribly frightening.

    On the one hand, you're told not to fret; you don't have invasive cancer and most probably won't (the 10-year survival rate is 99 percent).


    Then again, you're informed you must have the cells surgically removed, along with, in some instances, radiation and chemo… pretty much the same as if you had full-blown cancer.


    Though DCIS is almost always treated, scientists agree that not all cases of DCIS will turn harmful. In fact, most won't. The words "in situ" literally mean "in place" — in other words, non-invasive.


    DCIS comprises 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses, and is 99% curable. Breast cancer stages range from 0 to IV. The higher the stage, the worse the cancer… making stage zero seem pretty harmless.



    So why all the hype — and the aggressive treatment? Is it all a hoax?

It all begins with a mammogram

    DCIS is initially detected through mammography. But the trouble is, mammography is a very poor, inaccurate diagnostic tool.

    Perhaps its most glaring problem is its unacceptably high rate of false positives, up to six percent. A false positive occurs when the test mistakenly indicates cancer is present.


    It should be noted that we here at Cancer Defeated suggest you avoid mammography and use thermography, which has better detection for all stages of breast cancer without the risks of spreading potential cancers via compression and radiation. Detailed information about thermography is available in our Special Report, Breast Cancer Cover-Up.



    Getting back to conventional testing, if a mammogram detects an abnormal spot, the next step is usually biopsy — cutting a small amount of tissue from the breast to be examined under a microscope by a pathologist to see if cancer is present.

A 30-year history of confusion, differences of opinion,
and unnecessary treatment

    There's a huge problem with conventional testing…

    An estimated 17 percent of DCIS cases found through needle biopsy are misdiagnosed.¹



    Far from being the infallible "gold standard" claimed by conventional medicine… biopsy is fraught with errors and differences of opinion.


    DCIS is notoriously tricky to diagnose, prone to outright mistakes and case by case disagreements over whether a cluster of cells is benign or malignant.² Discerning these kinds of minute differences is a challenging area of pathology, the science of examining tissue samples for evidence of disease.


    Plus, pathologists vary widely in level of experience and expertise. Some read as few as 50 breast biopsies per year — far less than the acknowledged 250 a biologist needs to perform before you can have confidence in his or her ability.


    Add that to the fact that no diagnostic standards exist for DCIS, nor do any requirements of expertise levels in the pathologists who read them, and you have a real quagmire.



    So maybe this statement by Dr. Shahla Masood, head of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville is not so shocking…


    He told the New York Times, "There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin."³


    Indeed, even where your pathology report is done can affect the diagnosis.



    Many of the hundreds of thousands of biopsies performed each year are done in small community hospitals, where the pathologist may only read a few breast biopsies a year. Thus, they lack exposure to atypical breast lesions. The local pathologist might not even be board certified.


    In larger hospitals, the diagnosis may be decided by a tumor board.


    Beyond diagnostic errors, there's a difference of opinion as to what even constitutes DCIS.


    Dr. Lagios, a San Francisco pathologist who reviews slides for second opinions, uses a criterion that does not classify some breast lesions smaller than 2 mm as DCIS, even if they possess other markers of it.


    On the other hand, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston — also a respected center for breast pathology — those same lesions are considered DCIS.⁴

"We have troubling news to tell you…"

    In 2006, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure cancer group released a disturbing study.

    In it, an estimated 90,000 cases of women who'd received a DCIS or invasive breast cancer diagnosis either (1) did not have the disease, or (2) their pathologist made another error resulting in incorrect treatment.


    This wasn't really a shock to the medical community, since this problem had been cited in the medical literature numerous times.


    Take the illustrative stories of the women in the July 19, 2010 New York Times story as a case in point…



    All of them began their troubling journey with mammography showing a spot… which led to biopsy… and a (mis)diagnosis of DCIS… which then progressed to painful, debilitating, and disfiguring breast surgery… and one even led to radiation therapy — only to be told later that they never had cancer at all.


    Now imagine you've gone through that hellish series of events — and lived with the terrifying fear of invasive breast cancer — only to receive the troubling news that all the fear and pain was for nothing.


    Not very reassuring, even though…

You've got plenty of company

    An estimated one million women will be living with a DCIS diagnosis by 2020… and 50,000 new cases are diagnosed every year, just in the U.S.

    DCIS incidence rose from 1.87 per 100,000 in 1973-75, to a staggering 32.5 per 100,000 in 2004. A more than seventeen times increase… according to a published report by Beth Vernig, PhD and colleagues, in the January 13, 2010 online issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Virnig is professor of public health at the University of Minnesota, School of Public Health.



    Of course, that doesn't mean there's a sudden increase in this illness, or pre-illness, or whatever it is. It just means that testing has led to a massive increase in the number of cases diagnosed. Mammography may be responsible for the dramatic increase. Before widespread mammography use began in the 1980s, DCIS was rare. Now, since we assume early detection is the best way to "cure" cancer, we actively go looking for it.



    In addition to finding cancer in earlier stages, doctors sometimes find cells in a twilight zone between normal breast cells and cancerous ones — a condition known as DCIS or "stage zero" cancer.

The standard treatment protocol

    With few exceptions (notably elderly women with other health issues), standard practice is to treat DCIS as cancer, rather than monitor it to see if it progresses over time.

    This means doctors are surely over-treating some (perhaps many) patients. Conventional medicine claims to lack the necessary tools to identify who should be treated and who should be watched. They may have a point, but…



    With a DCIS diagnosis, your current treatment is almost always surgery — either a lumpectomy or mastectomy, depending on how widespread the cells appear to be in the ducts. As Allegra says, "it's hard to imagine not doing any surgery."⁵ (Emphasis mine.)



    If the cells are concentrated in one location, you'll get a lumpectomy followed by radiation… which conventional medicine says slashes the risk of recurrence in that breast (but not the other one) by half. But if abnormal cells are fairly widespread, they'll typically advise a mastectomy and skip the post-op radiation.


    Some women, particularly young women with a family history of breast cancer or genetic mutation (placing them at higher risk) even opt for a double mastectomy.


    The rate of double mastectomies for DCIS patients skyrocketed from 4.1 percent in 1998 to 13.5 percent in 2005 — well more than a three-fold increase — according to a study published in April 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.


    Your doctor may sometimes recommend Tamoxifen (a chemotherapy drug) along with surgery.

So, what if YOU get a DCIS diagnosis?

    First, take a deep breath and realize that mistakes are regularly made. There's no need to panic.

    If you're diagnosed with DCIS or any type of early stage breast cancer, ALWAYS get a second — if not a third and fourth — opinion. False positive rates are so high, the diagnostic criteria so subjective, and the risks of surgery, radiation, and chemo too great to forgo this step.


    Before you make any treatment decisions, have your biopsy results reviewed specifically by a breast specialist.



    As mentioned above, there are pathologists who specialize in rendering second opinions. I would certainly be willing to pay for it out of my own pocket, if necessary, before rushing into conventional medicine's slice and burn protocol.


    Some doctors are increasingly urging the cautionary principle even with a clear DCIS diagnosis. A wait and see attitude. There seems to be a growing body of evidence suggesting that some breast cancers may spontaneously regress without treatment.⁶


    Certainly a "wait and see" stance gives you a heads-up and an opportunity to engage in some of the strategies we discuss here and in our publications.

The controversy about over-treatment

    Lawsuits from women who have been wrongly diagnosed -- and undergone radical disfiguring surgeries as a result -- may be affecting the treatment landscape and giving credence to a less aggressive approach.

    Conventional medicine is quick to rush you into surgery. But researchers at the University of California-San Francisco see DCIS as part of a larger problem of cancer over-treatment.


    Laura Esserman, director of the Carol Franc Buck Cancer Center and Professor of Surgery and Radiology, co-authored the 'controversial' analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2009… which calls for a new look at screening for both breast and prostate cancer.


    Her argument: Mammography catches more early cancers, but the number caught at more advanced stages has not declined at a similar rate — which you'd expect if they were simply identifying early cases before they progress.



    So screening may just be finding cases that don't need treatment.

What if we took the carcinoma out of ductal
carcinoma in situ -- DCIS --and eased up on treatments?

    There's growing pressure in the medical community for dropping the "carcinoma" from DCIS — saying it is troubling and misleading (which is impossible to disagree with).

    These same proponents also suggest DCIS as an excellent candidate for "active surveillance" — a watching-waiting strategy that skips surgery and radiation unless the condition progresses to higher risk.



    So far, most of the drive for active surveillance seems to be coming from UC-San Francisco. Dr. Esserman has been especially forthright in demanding change in the naming and management of minimal risk cancers including DCIS.⁷



    She advocates that minimal risk lesions should not be called cancer, and proposed a new term… saying the new name encourages a search for good outcomes without over-treating a rather benign condition.


    With DCIS, "the bulk of what we find is not high grade… less than five percent of DCIS turns out to be 'something else' including invasive cancer," explained Dr. Esserman to Medscape Oncology in an interview.



    Only high-grade DCIS tends to progress to invasive breast cancer. "If if doesn't look like high-grade DCIS, we should leave it alone. We would eliminate two-thirds of all biopsies if we did," says Dr. Esserman.



    She states that there's sufficient data to rethink our entire approach to DCIS.


    I'm sure eliminating two-thirds of all biopsies and practicing active surveillance will rattle those whose livelihoods depend on it. But that's exactly the route I'd choose.


Kindest regards,

Lee Euler,
Publisher

---

Footnotes from 1st article:

¹http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20cancer.html?_r=3&th&emc=th


²http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20cancer.html?_r=3&th&emc=th
³http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20cancer.html?_r=3&th&emc=th
⁴http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20cancer.html?_r=3&th&emc=th


⁵http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2009/10/22/
the-confusion-over-dcis-what-to-do-about-stage-zero-breast-cancer

⁶http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/584147


⁷Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA. 2009;302:1685-1692).

References from second article:

"Cancer Death Rates Continue to Decline," by Katie Moisse. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/01/04/cancer-deaths-continue-to-decline/



"Cancer death rates continue to drop," by Amanda Gardner, HealthDay. http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/medical/cancer/story/2012-01-05/Cancer-death-rates-continue-to-drop/52387824/1


"Report: U.S. Cancer Death Rates Continue to Drop," by Dr. David B. Samadi. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/01/10/report-us-cancer-death-rates-continue-to-drop/


Fighting Cancer, ebook, by K.W.A. Jayawardana. http://www.nadula.info/healinghelp/FightingCancer/pdf/5%20Cancer%20statistics.pdf