Forced to Eat Crow . . .after patients use The 31-Day Home Cancer Cure | |||||||||||
|
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Shocked doctors forced to admit cancer cure works
Labels:
cancer cure treatment natural
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Is this health food really a poison?
Could This Popular Health Food be
|
Why Most Health Foods are a Waste of Money
By Lee Euler
You can take vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants by the handful and stillsuffer poor health. Now we know why. Our diets lack a vital food -- a type of nutrient that even alternative doctors don’t know about. Thanks to this supplement, a mother’s lifelong migraines disappeared, and a man with "terminal" kidney cancer was alive 15 years later. He’s just one of thousands of cancer patients who have taken this supplement and seen remarkable results.
There’s more: It’s one of the most popular pain relievers in Germany, used by that country’s Olympic team to help athletes get rid of pain and accelerate healing from sports injuries. It outperforms prescription blood clot drugs — in my opinion, patients should take this supplement instead of blood-thinning drugs like warfarin. And it even helps 9 out of 10 autistic children. The mother of a 7-year-old autistic child starting giving him this supplement after reading my Special Report The Missing Ingredient — and he started speaking after having been nonverbal his whole life! How can ONE supplement possibly do all this? Just ask yourself: What if you were getting NO vitamins in your diet? You’d be very sick. This nutrient is just as important and you’re getting almost none. Read more here about The Missing Ingredient, and consider trying it yourself. |
Some authorities believe soy plays no role in cancer, and particularly hormone-related cancers (like estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, uterine cancer, or ovarian cancer). Others point to animal studies suggesting that genistein, a main isoflavone in soy, actually promoted breast cancer growth.
Then along came further research showing that rats and mice metabolize phytoestrogens like genistein differently than humans, so the whole question is up in the air again.
Scientists in the past have said eating soy actually protects you from diseases like cancer, but most of those studies have been observational. In other words, researchers collect diet information from individuals and follow them for several years to see who develops cancer and who doesn't.
But as with any observational study, it could be that the connection between lower cancer risk and soy is due to an overlooked factor related to eating soy, particularly since people who eat soy might be more likely to exercise and eat more vegetables. The exercise and all the other healthy foods that soy eaters eat might offset the bad effects (if any) of eating soy.
Observational studies are prone to error because they don't get at cause and effect. All they can do is point out that "people who have characteristic X also tend to have characteristic Y." A classic example occurred decades ago when a big observational study seemed to indicate that people who drink coffee are more likely to get cancer and heart disease. It turned out it wasn't the coffee. Heavy coffee drinkers were more likely to smoke, and it was smoking that brought on the diseases.
Then along came further research showing that rats and mice metabolize phytoestrogens like genistein differently than humans, so the whole question is up in the air again.
Scientists in the past have said eating soy actually protects you from diseases like cancer, but most of those studies have been observational. In other words, researchers collect diet information from individuals and follow them for several years to see who develops cancer and who doesn't.
But as with any observational study, it could be that the connection between lower cancer risk and soy is due to an overlooked factor related to eating soy, particularly since people who eat soy might be more likely to exercise and eat more vegetables. The exercise and all the other healthy foods that soy eaters eat might offset the bad effects (if any) of eating soy.
Observational studies are prone to error because they don't get at cause and effect. All they can do is point out that "people who have characteristic X also tend to have characteristic Y." A classic example occurred decades ago when a big observational study seemed to indicate that people who drink coffee are more likely to get cancer and heart disease. It turned out it wasn't the coffee. Heavy coffee drinkers were more likely to smoke, and it was smoking that brought on the diseases.
One study says don't, others say do…
We all know prostate cancer is serious business, particularly in the U.S. where one in six men will develop the disease during his lifetime. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American men, eclipsed only by lung cancer.
For years, men with prostate cancer or even the likelihood of developing prostate cancer have been told to eat soy products. Part of that thinking comes from laboratory studies that show soy contains substances with anti-cancer properties, including isoflavones.
Another part of the pro-soy logic stems from what's been observed in Asia, where soy is a constant in the diet starting at birth. Prostate cancer rates there are much lower than in the U.S., though it does raise the question of whether soy consumption early in life plays a role or whether it's possible to begin a healthy soy regimen at a later age. It also raises the same questions as any observational study: Asians do a lot of things differently than Americans. How do we know it's soy that causes them to enjoy lower prostate cancer rates?
The thing is, there's no hard evidence that soy keeps prostate cancer at bay. And now there's a new study that throws even more cold water on the idea. According to Dr. Maarten Bosland, professor of pathology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lead researcher in a recent soy study, daily consumption of soy after surgery for prostate cancer "does not reduce the risk of recurrence."
The study led by Bosland and published in the July 10 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, included over 150 men with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Each had undergone a radical prostatectomy, which didn't remove all the cancer cells.
Each of the men was assigned to drink either a powdered soy protein drink or a placebo beverage every day for two years. At the end of the study, no significant difference between the two groups could be found in terms of cancer recurrence. Just over a quarter of the men in each group had prostate cancer recurrence within two years.
Dr. Bosland says soy is still safe to take and that it has no adverse side effects, but some studies say otherwise. According to other authoritative figures, like Dr. Anthony D'Amico, chief of radiation oncology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, soy supplementation brings no harm and may offer a benefit. Dr. D'Amico advises against using the recent study—which he says was quite small—as evidence that people should stop eating soy for health benefits.
For years, men with prostate cancer or even the likelihood of developing prostate cancer have been told to eat soy products. Part of that thinking comes from laboratory studies that show soy contains substances with anti-cancer properties, including isoflavones.
Another part of the pro-soy logic stems from what's been observed in Asia, where soy is a constant in the diet starting at birth. Prostate cancer rates there are much lower than in the U.S., though it does raise the question of whether soy consumption early in life plays a role or whether it's possible to begin a healthy soy regimen at a later age. It also raises the same questions as any observational study: Asians do a lot of things differently than Americans. How do we know it's soy that causes them to enjoy lower prostate cancer rates?
The thing is, there's no hard evidence that soy keeps prostate cancer at bay. And now there's a new study that throws even more cold water on the idea. According to Dr. Maarten Bosland, professor of pathology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lead researcher in a recent soy study, daily consumption of soy after surgery for prostate cancer "does not reduce the risk of recurrence."
The study led by Bosland and published in the July 10 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, included over 150 men with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Each had undergone a radical prostatectomy, which didn't remove all the cancer cells.
Each of the men was assigned to drink either a powdered soy protein drink or a placebo beverage every day for two years. At the end of the study, no significant difference between the two groups could be found in terms of cancer recurrence. Just over a quarter of the men in each group had prostate cancer recurrence within two years.
Dr. Bosland says soy is still safe to take and that it has no adverse side effects, but some studies say otherwise. According to other authoritative figures, like Dr. Anthony D'Amico, chief of radiation oncology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, soy supplementation brings no harm and may offer a benefit. Dr. D'Amico advises against using the recent study—which he says was quite small—as evidence that people should stop eating soy for health benefits.
The multiple hazards of soy consumption
Another unsolved puzzle is whether soy foods play a different role in the body than do soy supplements. Some say straight soy beats supplements any day, while others point to the shocking prevalence of GMO soy. And if you follow anything GMO-related, you know that it never leads to good news or healthy outcomes. Several reports say as much as 99 percent of soy has been genetically modified, and most soybean plants are treated with a high level of pesticides.
Does that mean organic soy is the way to go? Possibly, but here are some more soy-related facts that should give you pause.
Does that mean organic soy is the way to go? Possibly, but here are some more soy-related facts that should give you pause.
- Soy is high in something called phytic acid, which blocks the absorption of minerals like calcium and magnesium. That's one reason third-world countries with grain- and legume-based diets (and thus high phytic acid levels) tend to have widespread mineral deficiencies.
- Soybeans have toxins that are so powerful, they're not destroyed during cooking. Many of the toxins are known as enzyme inhibitors, which complicate your ability to digest protein. In one study, animals that consumed enzyme inhibitors ended up developing pancreatic problems, including pancreatic cancer. Yikes!
- Soy products tend to have higher-than-normal levels of aluminum, which is known to have negative health effects. It comes from aluminum tanks where the beans are washed and heat-treated. I don't think this is a major worry, but I toss it out there for your consideration.
This brings us back to the Asia question, and why Asian cultures have been safely consuming soy for thousands of years. One theory is that they only began soy consumption after they figured out how to ferment it; before that, they avoided soybeans because of the toxins.
Fermentation makes the nutrients in soy more available on a biological level while destroying their natural toxins. Fermented soy foods include natto, miso, and tempeh. But the downside to those foods is that they're high in sodium. Again, I don't feel this is a major worry, but if you think you're salt sensitive, you need to know it.
The evidence I've seen for fermented soy is highly favorable. I see it as healthy food to eat, with benefits in treating and preventing a variety of diseases including cancer and heart disease. For more on this, check out our Issue #88.
Fermentation makes the nutrients in soy more available on a biological level while destroying their natural toxins. Fermented soy foods include natto, miso, and tempeh. But the downside to those foods is that they're high in sodium. Again, I don't feel this is a major worry, but if you think you're salt sensitive, you need to know it.
The evidence I've seen for fermented soy is highly favorable. I see it as healthy food to eat, with benefits in treating and preventing a variety of diseases including cancer and heart disease. For more on this, check out our Issue #88.
When in doubt, don't eat it
Other than fermented, soy is a minefield. I don't eat it — in defiance of my integrative doctor, a smart man who continues to believe soy is a healthy food. It's just about impossible to reach any definite conclusions about it. That's enough reason to avoid it.
Kindest regards,
Lee Euler, Publisher
Lee Euler, Publisher
References:
"Newest Research On Why You Should Avoid Soy." by Sally Fallon & Mary G. Enig, Ph.D. Mercola: Health Articles.
http://www.mercola.com/ article/soy/avoid_soy.htm
"Soyfoods & Cancer." By Lindsey Getz, Today's Dietitian, Vol. 15 No. 4 P. 30.
http://www.todaysdietitian. com/newarchives/040113p30. shtml
"Soy and Hormone Related Cancers." By Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD, on behalf on the ON DPG, Oncology Nutrition.
http://www.oncologynutrition. org/erfc/hot-topics/soy-and- hormone-related-cancers/
"Soy products linked to cancer in lab tests." By Zach C. Miller, Natural News, 16 July 2013.
http://www.infowars.com/soy- products-linked-to-cancer-in- lab-tests/
"Soy Won't Prevent Prostate Cancer's Return: Study." By Steven Reinberg, HealthDay. WebMD, Prostate Cancer News.
http://www.webmd.com/prostate- cancer/news/20130709/soy-wont- prevent-prostate-cancers- return-study
"What are the key statistics about prostate cancer?" American Cancer Society: Prostate Cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/ prostatecancer/detailedguide/ prostate-cancer-key-statistics
http://www.mercola.com/
"Soyfoods & Cancer." By Lindsey Getz, Today's Dietitian, Vol. 15 No. 4 P. 30.
http://www.todaysdietitian.
"Soy and Hormone Related Cancers." By Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD, on behalf on the ON DPG, Oncology Nutrition.
http://www.oncologynutrition.
"Soy products linked to cancer in lab tests." By Zach C. Miller, Natural News, 16 July 2013.
http://www.infowars.com/soy-
"Soy Won't Prevent Prostate Cancer's Return: Study." By Steven Reinberg, HealthDay. WebMD, Prostate Cancer News.
http://www.webmd.com/prostate-
"What are the key statistics about prostate cancer?" American Cancer Society: Prostate Cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/
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!
Labels:
cancer cure treatment natural
Monday, August 26, 2013
Damon Wilson Gains Valuable Experience as NFL's St. Louis Rams Intern
ST. LOUIS, MO. – Bowie State Head Football Coach Damon Wilson recently completed a summer internship with St. Louis Rams as part of the Bill Walsh NFL Minority Coaching Fellowship. The annual program is administered by the NFL Management Council and NFL Player Engagement.
The program's objective is to use NFL Clubs’ training camps, offseason workout program and minicamps to give talented minority coaches opportunities to observe, participate, gain experience and ultimately gain a full-time NFL coaching position.
“The Rams are a first class organization and Coach Fisher and his staff really continued to improve my development as a Head coach and the CEO of Bowie State University football program”, said Wilson.
During his internship with the Rams, Wilson had the opportunity to participate in all of the offensive/Defensive and Special teams meetings along with personnel meetings. Wilson primarily worked with Coach Ben Sirmans (Running Backs) and Coach Brian Schottenheimer (Offensive Coordinator). “Coach Schottenheimer along with his offensive staff have a wealth of knowledge and have an excellent way of teaching their players”, stated Wilson.
Designed as a vocational tool to increase the number of full-time NFL minority coaches, all 32 NFL Clubs participate in the program on an annual basis. Specific aspects of the program (including hiring, salary and coaching duties) are administered on a Club-by-Club basis. No elements of the Fellowship are mandated to the Clubs by the League office, but several “best practices” have been strongly recommended to the Club, including: Participants are hired for the duration of training camp, including all pre-season games. Clubs are encouraged to hire a minimum of four (4) participants.
As part of the programs’ evolution, in 2012 the NFL announced the formation of the Bill Walsh Minority Coaching Fellowship Advisory Council, comprised of a distinguished group of NFL coaches and general managers.
“I believe this was the best possible organization for me to land an internship with because of the youth on their roster and the experience of the coaching staff, said Wilson. “The Rams have one of the youngest rosters in the NFL, which for me was great because it reminded me of a college atmosphere at practice and in meetings. I was also afforded the opportunity to meet with the Pro and College scouting department. This was great because it gave me the opportunity to confirm that what we are teaching and telling our student-athletes at Bowie State University is in line with what’s being taught at the highest level. We are very fortunate with graduating our players and to have two players from BSU in the last four years remain on NFL rosters. In order to continue to prepare our players for the possible opportunity to play at the highest level, I believe that my coaching staff and I must take advantage of every opportunity that we receive to experience an internship like this one.”
Sunday, August 25, 2013
This could be more dangerous than cancer itself
This Major Risk Could Be More Dangerous than Cancer Itself
A cancer diagnosis can be downright terrifying.
And then, almost without pause, come rounds of treatments. And in millions of cases, it's a false alarm, a wrong diagnosis… a physically and emotionally draining event that can do terrible damage to body, mind and spirit. That's why the some of the top dogs in the cancer industry now want to change the definition of cancer… They woke up and discovered that too many people were being misdiagnosed and given treatments they don't need. Read on… Continued below...
Have we finally identified the REAL enemy
in the war on cancer?
A new report by the National Cancer Institute confirms what many of us in the alternative cancer care world have been saying for years…
The famous "war on cancer" has been targeting the wrong enemy — and you may become a victim of friendly fire. In late July, a National Cancer Institute report published by JAMA online made the shocking statement that benign or premalignant conditions should no longer be called cancer. This includes low-risk lesions like DCIS -- ductal carcinoma in situ, a breast condition we wrote about in Issue #154. We were already warning our readers back then that it was nothing to worry about. We called it "zero stage cancer" — in other words, not cancer at all HGPIN is another condition that — suddenly -- is no longer defined as cancer. HGPIN stands for high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, a prostate condition diagnosed in millions of men and then over-treated. These are normally non-invasive conditions that don't require treatment at all — let alone the aggressive treatment they're often given. They aren't the enemy after all. As readers of this newsletter know, we've often questioned the use of repeated, cancer-causing x-ray breast screenings and potentially misleading PSA tests. They cause a great deal of needless fear and painful over-treatment. And it turns out the emotional terror can do you great harm.
The War on Cancer: A bunch of hot air
This new study has grave implications, such as:
There's no doubt that the practice of oncology in the U.S. (and many other parts of the world) needs major reform.
"Treatment" can make your cancer cells
30 times more malignant
The current rash of over-diagnoses stems from the fact that these "cancers" are by and large slow-growing ones with no symptoms. They would almost never progress to harmful status if left alone and ignored. Keep in mind, the medical establishment has a motive for diagnosing phony cancers and then "curing" them (besides the money): It helps pad the statistics for survivors and survival rates. How easy it is to survive a cancer that wasn't a cancer!
In fact, it's the fast-growing tumors that are much more challenging to detect early. And this might surprise you: Even in those cases, many of them would never progress to a lethal state. What's worse… certain of these tumors are enhanced and become more malignant because of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers recently found that radiation therapy transforms breast cancer cells into highly malignant cancer cells — with 30 times higher malignancy after radiation treatments. What they found is that even when radiation kills half the tumor cells, the surviving ones become resistant to treatment. So, radiation cuts the total cancer cell population, giving the false impression that the treatment is working… when in reality it increases the percentage of highly malignant cells that can lead to treatment-induced death.1 This means it's not only possible you never had cancer in the first place, but now the treatment is causing cancer cells to proliferate inside your body. Talk about a double whammy.
Is cancer really an enemy attacking you?
Maybe our entire way of looking at cancer needs to shift from the "enemy attacking you" that requires a raging war… to something your body performs to protect you internally. I recently came across an interesting theory about that, proposed by Paul Davies, of Arizona State University, and Charles Lineweaver, Australian National University scientist.
Davies calls cancer "not a random bunch of selfish rogue cells behaving badly, but a highly-efficient pre-programmed response to stress…" In other words, cancer may be your body's response to an unhealthy cellular environment. It may be more a symptom than a disease… your body's effort to "right itself" in the context of cellular and environmental conditions gone terribly wrong. If this is true, we'll need to question the prevailing theory that cancer cells are the result of rogue mutations that can kill us — and the prevailing treatment of killing them with chemotherapy and radiation.
Worse than cancer: Crippling fear and needless treatment
for a nonexistent cancer
If you view cancer as a chaos-driven, infinitely expanding mass of cells, you'll tend to make bad choices in the panic of the moment.
NCI's panel opined: ...cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient's lifetime.
That's why this proposed redefinition of cancer is no small matter. It'll affect millions of people. Every year, 60,000 American women are diagnosed with DCIS, besides men with HGPIN, and the rest of the 2 million Americans with other cancers.
The diagnosis unleashes shock and fear — which in and of itself can be a killer. Research shows that a cancer diagnosis can be as fatal as cancer itself. Published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2012, scientists evaluated 6 million Swedish adults regarding the psychological toll of a cancer diagnosis. After analyzing more than 500,000 cancer diagnoses, they concluded that the risk of suicide was 16 times higher, and the risk of heart-related death was 26.9 times higher — during just the first week following diagnosis — compared to people who were cancer free. Few women recover from the devastating fear and stress that follows a false-positive breast cancer diagnoses, even three years after they've learned the diagnosis was wrong and they're declared cancer-free. This finding about long-lasting damage is based on measurements of 12 psychological qualities, including a sense of dejection, anxiety, feelings of attractiveness, and negative impact on sleep, behavior, sexuality, and more. Even after being "cleared of cancer" the psychological impact was equivalent to actuallyhaving breast cancer. This finding is so shocking I can't help but think it's got to be a mistake, but that's what the researchers concluded. This is extremely likely to affect you or someone you love, considering you have a fifty-fifty chance of getting a false-positive at least once if you get a mammogram every year for ten years. One example: A woman in Texas was told she had Stage 4 terminal breast cancer, and was led down the road of chemotherapy and depression… only to learn much later that the diagnosis was wrong. She didn't have cancer in the first place. And she's not the only one, by ANY stretch. Disturbing? Yes. But this doesn't have to happen to you…
7 ways to avoid being the victim of a false positive
You may not be able to avoid being told you have cancer due to a false positive from a screening test, but you can chart your own path and spare yourself the trauma of unneeded treatments.
And it definitely helps to have thought this out beforehand. You and your loved ones have far more vested interest in your health than any medical professional you'll ever meet. So take the steps you can take, such as:
Above all, remember that you are in charge of your own health — not your doctor or your genes. Doctors make mistakes. Don't permit yourself to be rushed into anything.
|
Labels:
cancer cure treatment natural
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Bowie State Honored with Division II Athletic Directors Association Academic Achievement Awards
CLEVELAND, OH - The Division II Athletics Directors Association (D2ADA) announced the 2012-13 recipients of the D2ADA Academic Achievement Awards. The Academic Achievement Awards is a program that recognizes the academic accomplishments of student-athletes at the Division II level.
A record number of institutions (169) and student-athletes (6,801) are recognized for the 2012-13 Academic Achievement Awards. Bowie State University had nine student-athletes recognized from five different athletic programs. The Bulldogs joined Chowan, Elizabeth City State, Fayetteville State, Saint Augustine's, Shaw and Virginia State among CIAA schools to academic achievements through D2ADA.
Representing Bowie State were Kassandra Bishop (Tennis), Cassandra Clayborne (Softball), Megan Alexander (Softball), Gregory Koepping (Football), Hayley Flint (Softball), Mariela Hernandez (Softball), Iyabode Sodipo (Tennis), Paige McIntosh (Volleyball) and Ayanna Tweedy (Track and Field).
“I would like to congratulate our nine award winners,” said Bowie State Athletic Director Anton Goff. “It is a testament to their dedication and hard work in achieving a high level of success in the classroom and on the field and court. It is also a reflection of the priority that our coaches and staff put on academics. I am extremely proud to have our student-athletes recognized in this manner.”
In order to receive an Academic Achievement Award, the student-athlete must:
· Have a cumulative grade point average of 3.5 or higher on a 4.0 scale
· Have attended a minimum of two years (four semesters) of college level work
· Have been an active member of an intercollegiate team during his/her last academic year
"The D2ADA would like to thank and congratulate the institutions that took part in honoring the record number of student-athletes with 2012-13 Academic Achievement Awards," stated D2ADA President Anita Barker, director of athletics at Chico State University. "We continuously strive to recognize and honor deserving Division 2 student-athletes. This award gives us the platform to showcase these individuals and their efforts in the classroom, as well as on the playing field."
The D2ADA is the first organization of its kind to provide educational and networking opportunities; enhancement of acceptable operating standards and ethics; and establishment of the overall prestige and understanding of the profession of Division 2 athletics directors. For more information about the D2ADA, please visit www.div2ada.com. The D2ADA is administered by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA), which is in its 49th year. For more information on NACDA and the 13 professional associations that fall under its umbrella, please visit www.nacda.com.
Beware of mainstream reporting about cancer
Don't Let Mainstream Mis-reporting about Cancer Kill Your Chances of Good Health
I know I'm not the only person disappointed with the news media. It's rife with sensationalism and biased stories. Worst of all are the "journalists" who go in search of tabloid-style stories and don't bother with the details.
What happens in these cases? We end up watching biased stories that appear to be objective but aren't. I recently saw a bogus news segment on thermograms, so I want to set the record straight on how this early detection tool can save you from breast cancer despite what some know-nothing journalists may say. It could save your life. Continued below...
Mammograms versus thermograms
The news report I saw knocking thermograms was based on ONE case of a woman who received a false negative, indicating she didn't have cancer when in fact she did. The reporter then trotted out sound bites from a couple of radiologists (who make their living off of X-rays) to say that of course thermograms aren't good for much and women should stick to mammograms.
The news report didn't say a word about the terrible inaccuracy of mammograms, the countless false negatives and false positives. If we're going to condemn screening procedures for one false negative, mammograms would have been outlawed years ago. Early detection is key when it comes to any cancer, and breast cancer in particular. And it's a fact that thermograms are a safe, valuable early detection tool for breast cancer. The problem is, no single early detection tool is flawless. Mammograms are the most well-known, and they certainly detect some cancers. But they're also virtually useless when it comes to detecting tumors in the dense tissue of younger women. On top of that, mammograms can deliver false-negatives, false-positives, over-diagnosis, over-treatment, and radiation exposure. Last I checked, the false-negative rate was around 20 percent—meaning mammograms will miss one out of five breast cancer tumors. They're also virtually useless for women under age 40—and though rare, it's the younger-than-forty crowd that develops some of the most malicious strains of breast cancer.
Consider thermograms instead
Thermography is not "alternative medicine" as such. It's legal in the United States and widely used in Europe. In the U.S., conventional medicine has thrown it on the alternative medicine dust heap because it poses a threat to mammography, a huge, profitable industry with tens of thousands of people making a living off it.
The FDA approves thermography as safe but doesn't officially support it and says it's not an alternative to mammography. But given the FDA's poor track record in supporting safe, non-invasive, proven health treatments, you shouldn't let that stop you from reaping the benefits of thermography screening. If you don't know about it, thermography is a form of digital infrared imaging that's completely safe—no radiation exposure whatsoever. It's based on the concept that early tumor sites project more heat than normal breast tissue. This is because of the increased blood vessel circulation and metabolic changes that take place when a tumor first develops. A thermogram pinpoints the abnormal heat levels that cancerous and — this is important — pre-cancerous areas generate. These areas pour out excessive heat long before a mammogram or any physical examination can detect a thing. But when it comes to thermograms, the key thing is to look at changes over time. So anyone who gets a single thermogram and thinks that's the last word on their risk factor is missing out on crucial information.
The single-bullet approach
While I absolutely do think some screening tests are better than others, it riles me when a news program puts out a sensational story that paints a tool as worthless. It's like the medical industry taking a single-bullet approach to healthcare, trying to pigeon-hole illnesses into one-size-fits-all problems and solutions. Healthcare isn't that easy, and it never will be.
Here's what you have to remember. Most high-tech screening procedures are flawed in some way. Take mammograms, for instance. They're just X-ray pictures of the breast. Not only do they not work well on dense breast tissue, as mentioned, but they're subject to error. The machine can malfunction. The technician who interprets your results can screw up. Or a tumor just won't show. In a thermogram, the tumor site needs to be caught at a certain growth stage. And again, interpretation is subject to human error. The images have to be interpreted by a skilled, experienced thermographer. And as I said earlier, it's the changes seen in a series of images, taken over a period of years, that most accurately flags cancer risk. If this sounds alarming, it really isn't. The abnormally hot areas that turn up in thermograms can take many, many years to develop into cancer. Immediate treatment isn't needed. You've got time to observe how they change — and to proceed to other tests such as biopsies and mammograms if they seem warranted. Cancerous areas literally get hotter every year, and a thermogram can often see this occurring long before an X-ray could ever detect a mass. We already know one in five cancers can't be detected by mammography. Some of those cancers can be picked up by a thermogram. On the flip side, there is the occasional tumor site that won't show up on a thermogram, but may with a mammogram or other screening test. In fact, some studies show an increased survival rate when mammography and breast thermography are used together.
It's in your hands…
I'd say the best possible tool for fighting breast cancer is simply awareness. Know your options and choose what feels best for you based on your age, genetic risk, tissue density, and access. I'm not a fan of some of the diagnostic tools out there, but if you opt to use them, make sure you go in with eyes wide open. Ask questions. Don't be a meek little lamb who does whatever doctor says. If you ever have any kind of doubts, get a second opinion. Push for it. It's your life we're talking about. |
Labels:
cancer cure treatment natural
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Life-and-death danger for men on BPH drugs
Warning to Men on Drugs for Enlarged Prostate: They've been Linked to Cancer!
Some of the latest news about some popular prostate drugs links them to cancer. If confirmed true, it's disastrous news indeed, because about half of all men in their sixties have enlarged prostate (BPH), and as many as 90 percent of men in their seventies and eighties suffer from it.
American men are bombarded day and night with commercials urging us to take prescription drugs for BPH, and millions have heeded the call. Are we in the middle of a massive health catastrophe? Let's take a look. I also have somegood news about BPH and cancer, and you don't see much of that, so keep reading! Continued below. . .
In June 2011, the Food and Drug Administration issued an official warning1 about an increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer linked to the drugs finasteride (Proscar) and dutasteride (Avodart).
They even went on to update the Warnings and Precautions section of labels for this class of drugs known as 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (alpha blockers). Just so you're clear on some of the brand names, Avodart, Jalyn, and Proscar are approved to treat symptoms of prostate swelling — benign prostatic hyperplasia or BPH. And small doses of another drug, Propecia, are approved to treat hair loss in men. Propecia and Proscar are both brand names for finasteride. Dunno about you… but I'd think twice before swallowing anything that's sporting the "may cause cancer" label! I think I'd rather go bald, or deal with the frequent urination caused by BPH. Now if you have a taste for irony, you'll love this: Just a few months before this announcement, the FDA put the kybosh on plans to market these drugs as ones that could help PREVENT prostate cancer! For a change, Big Pharma got a much-needed smackdown in December 2010. GlaxoSmithKline, maker of dutasteride (brand name Avodart), wanted to add language to the label indicating the drug's ability to reduce prostate cancer risk in men who:
Instead, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 17-0 that GlaxoSmithKline's dutasteride and Merck's finasteride should NOT be used to prevent prostate cancer. Why?
They said the drugs had been linked to a higher incidence of high-grade tumors. At least now we'll be spared a barrage of commercials claiming these drugs are cancer answers. The FDA decided that any benefits seen in the reduction of less-risky tumors were outweighed by the development of more life-threatening cancers is some subjects. Despite the risks from these drugs, many men still take them when seeking relief from a swollen prostate. Here's why…
Are you battling a bulging prostate?
Here are a few key facts to know about your prostate gland:
A healthy, mature prostate should remain the size of a walnut. At most, a healthy prostate may grow to the size of a small plum.
But if your prostate grows much bigger than that (as most do, the older you get), then you can experience serious discomfort and problems with urination. What's worse, an overgrown prostate can put the squeeze on nerves that help control your erections. This can make it difficult—if not impossible—to perform sexually. But here's a good question (and one I've often wondered about): Does BPH mean you're at greater risk of cancer? Not necessarily…
BPH doesn't mean cancer
Keep in mind that the "B" in BPH stands for "benign." It means the growth is non-cancerous. Scientists have not been able to determine for sure whether prostate swelling is a precursor to prostate cancer.
All the same, BPH symptoms can mimic those related to malignant abnormal cell growth, such as:
In time, these problems can cause your bladder to become more irritable… to contract even when it only has a small amount of urine… and give you more frequent and sudden urges to pee. No doubt you've seen those commercials with older men dashing for the nearest restroom all day long, or getting up several times a night to urinate.
It's annoying. But it's not cancer. And here's more good news if you're experiencing any of these symptoms…
Dangerous drugs are NOT your only option!
Prescriptions for BPH drugs can be expensive and may produce unwanted side effects such as headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and even sudden fainting. A large number of men also report a loss of sex drive, and some say it doesn't come back even after they stop taking the drug.
We covered this simmering scandal in our Special Report Maximum Manhood. If I say so myself, every man over 40 should read this report. It not only covers the dangers of prescription BPH drugs, but it goes over all your natural treatment options. The report also covers testosterone supplements (natural AND prescription) in greater depth than any other publication you can find. It just so happens that getting your testosterone up may bring you relief from BPH and the never-ending trips to the bathroom.Click here to learn more. I would avoid taking BPH drugs. And in fact I DO avoid it. I'm in the midst of trying the most widely recommended natural solutions for BPH. No success so far, I have to tell you. But I do know they work for some men. They're worth a try. And meanwhile I'm going to keep looking for one that works for me. Maximum Manhood covers the natural BPH solutions in depth, but here are some of the best-known ones:
There are a number of high-quality supplements that contain some or all of these (and many other natural substances) to help keep your prostate growth in check.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)