Chemotherapy criticised by Australian oncologists

posted on Cancercured yahoo health group:

AUSTRALIAN ONCOLOGISTS CRITICIZE CHEMOTHERAPY
_http://www.curenatu ralicancro. com/oncologists- criticize- chemotherapy. html_
(http://www.curenatu ralicancro. com/oncologists- criticize- chemotherapy. html)

An important paper has been published in the journal Clinical Oncology. This
meta-analysis, entitled “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to
5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies” set out to accurately quantify and assess
the actual benefit conferred by chemotherapy in the treatment of adults with
the commonest types of cancer. Although the paper has attracted some attention
in Australia, the native country of the paper’s authors, it has been greeted
with complete silence on this side of the world.
All three of the paper’s authors are oncologists. Lead author Associate
Professor Graeme Morgan is a radiation oncologist at Royal North Shore Hospital
in Sydney; Professor Robyn Ward is a medical oncologist at University of New
South Wales/St. Vincent’s Hospital. The third author, Dr. Michael Barton, is a
radiation oncologist and a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes
Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney. Prof. Ward is also a
member of the Therapeutic Goods Authority of the Australian Federal
Department of Health and Aging, the official body that advises the Australian
government on the suitability and efficacy of drugs to be listed on the national
Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) – roughly the equivalent of the US Food
and Drug Administration.
Their meticulous study was based on an analysis of the results of all the
randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) performed in Australia and the US
that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to
the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies. Survival data were drawn from
the Australian cancer registries and the US National Cancer Institute’s
Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry spanning the period
January 1990 until January 2004.
Wherever data were uncertain, the authors deliberately erred on the side of
over-estimating the benefit of chemotherapy. Even so, the study concluded
that overall, chemotherapy contributes just over 2 percent to improved survival
in cancer patients.
Yet despite the mounting evidence of chemotherapy’ s lack of effectiveness in
prolonging survival, oncologists continue to present chemotherapy as a
rational and promising approach to cancer treatment.
“Some practitioners still remain optimistic that cytotoxic chemotherapy will
significantly improve cancer survival,” the authors wrote in their
introduction. “However, despite the use of new and expensive single and combination
drugs to improve response rates…there has been little impact from the use of
newer regimens” (Morgan 2005).
The Australian authors continued: “…in lung cancer, the median survival
has increased by only 2 months [during the past 20 years, ed.] and an overall
survival benefit of less than 5 percent has been achieved in the adjuvant
treatment of breast, colon and head and neck cancers.”
The results of the study are summarized in two tables, reproduced below.
Table 1 shows the results for Australian patients; Table 2 shows the results for
US patients. The authors point out that the similarity of the figures for
Australia and the US make it very likely that the recorded benefit of 2.5
percent or less would be mirrored in other developed countries also.
(NB: We apologize for the poor image quality of these tables. The blanks in
the columns represent zero, i.e. no direct benefit can be attributed to
chemotherapy; no patients in that category achieved an increased 5-year survival
due to chemotherapy. )
Table 1
Results for Australian patients

_larger image_ (http://www.cancerde cisions.com/ images/Table1. jpg)
_http://www.cancerde cisions.com/ images/Table1. jpg_
(http://www.cancerde cisions.com/ images/Table1. jpg)
source: _http://www.cancerde cisions.com_ (http://www.cancerde cisions.com)
Table 2
Results for US patients

_larger image_ (http://www.cancerde cisions.com/ images/Table2. jpg)
_http://www.cancerde cisions.com/ images/Table2. jpg_
(http://www.cancerde cisions.com/ images/Table2. jpg)
source: _http://www.cancerde cisions.com_ (http://www.cancerde cisions.com)
Basically, the authors found that the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year
survival in adults was 2.3 percent in Australia, and 2.1 percent in the USA.
They emphasize that, for reasons explained in detail in the study, these
figures “should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness” (i.e., they are
an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate).
Understanding Relative Risk
How is it possible that patients are routinely offered chemotherapy when the
benefits to be gained by such an approach are generally so small? In their
discussion, the authors address this crucial question and cite the tendency on
the part of the medical profession to present the benefits of chemotherapy in
statistical terms that, while technically accurate, are seldom clearly
understood by patients.
For example, oncologists frequently express the benefits of chemotherapy in
terms of what is called “relative risk” rather than giving a straight
assessment of the likely impact on overall survival. Relative risk is a statistical
means of expressing the benefit of receiving a medical intervention in a way
that, while technically accurate, has the effect of making the intervention
look considerably more beneficial than it truly is. If receiving a treatment
causes a patient’s risk to drop from 4 percent to 2 percent, this can be
expressed as a decrease in relative risk of 50 percent. On face value that sounds
good. But another, equally valid way of expressing this is to say that it
offers a 2 percent reduction in absolute risk, which is less likely to convince
patients to take the treatment.
It is not only patients who are misled by the overuse of relative risk in
reporting the results of medical interventions. Several studies have shown that
physicians are also frequently beguiled by this kind of statistical sleight
of hand. According to one such study, published in the British Medical
Journal, physicians’ views of the effectiveness of drugs, and their decision to
prescribe such drugs, was significantly influenced by the way in which clinical
trials of these drugs were reported. When results were expressed as a relative
risk reduction, physicians believed the drugs were more effective and were
strongly more inclined to prescribe than they were when the identical results
were expressed as an absolute risk reduction (Bucher 1994).
Another study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, demonstrated
that the way in which survival benefits are presented specifically influenced
the decision of medical professionals to recommend chemotherapy. Since 80
percent of patients chose what their oncologist recommends, the way in which the
oncologist perceives and conveys the benefits of treatment is of vital
importance. This study showed that when physicians are given relative risk
reduction figures for a chemotherapy regimen, they are more likely to recommend it
to their patients than when they are given the mathematically identical
information expressed as an absolute risk reduction (Chao 2003).
The way that medical information is reported in the professional literature
therefore clearly has an important influence on the treatment recommendations
oncologists make. A drug that can be said, for example, to reduce cancer
recurrence by 50 percent, is likely to get the attention and respect of
oncologists and patients alike, even though the absolute risk may only be a small one
– perhaps only 2 or 3 percent – and the reduction in absolute risk
commensurately small.
To their credit, the Australian authors of the study on the effectiveness of
chemotherapy address the issue of relative versus absolute risk. They suggest
that the apparent gulf between the public perception of chemotherapy’ s
effectiveness and its actual mediocre track record can largely be attributed to
the tendency of both the media and the medical profession to express efficacy
in terms of relative rather than absolute risk .
“The minimal impact on survival in the more common cancers conflicts with the
perceptions of many patients who feel they are receiving a treatment that
will significantly enhance their chances of cure,” the authors wrote. “In part
this represents the presentation of data as a reduction in risk rather than
as an absolute survival benefit and by exaggerating the response rates by
including ‘stable disease.'”
As an example of how chemotherapy is oversold, they cite the treatment of
breast cancer. In 1998 in Australia, out of the total of 10,661 women who were
newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 4,638 women were considered eligible for
chemotherapy. Of these 4,638 women, only 164 (3.5 percent) actually gained
some survival benefit from chemotherapy. As the authors point out, the use of
newer chemotherapy regimens including the taxanes and anthracyclines for breast
cancer may raise survival by an estimated additional one percent – but this
is achieved at the expense of an increased risk of cardiac toxicity and nerve
damage.
“There is also no convincing evidence,” they write, “that using regimens with
newer and more expensive drugs is any more beneficial than the regimens used
in the 1970s.” They add that two systematic reviews of the evidence been not
been able to demonstrate any survival benefit for chemotherapy in recurrent
or metastatic breast cancer.
Another factor clouding the issue is the growing trend for clinical trials to
use what are called ‘surrogate end points,’ as a yardstick by which to
measure a chemotherapy regimen’s effectiveness. This is instead of using the only
real measures that matters to patients – prolongation of life as measured by
overall survival and improved quality of life. Surrogate end points such as
‘progression- free survival,’ ‘disease-free survival’ or ‘recurrence- free
survival’ may only reflect temporary lulls in the progression of the disease.
Such temporary stabilization of disease, if it occurs at all, seldom lasts for
more than a few months at best. The cancer typically returns, sometimes with
renewed vigor, and survival is not generally extended by such interventions.
However, trials reported in terms of surrogate end points can create the
illusion that the lives of desperately ill patients are being significantly
extended or made more bearable by chemotherapy, when in reality this is not the
case.
In summary, the authors state:
“The introduction of cytotoxic chemotherapy for solid tumors and the
establishment of the sub-specialty of medical oncology have been accepted as an
advance in cancer management. However, despite the early claims of chemotherapy
as the panacea for curing all cancers, the impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy is
limited to small subgroups of patients and mostly occurs in the less common
malignancies. ”

Splitting Hairs
In view of the highly controversial nature of the study’s findings, one might
have expected it to receive enormous international attention. Instead, media
reaction has been largely limited to the authors’ native land of Australia;
the study received almost no coverage whatsoever in the US. In fact, although
the paper appeared in December 2004, there was limited coverage even Down
Under. The authors were interviewed for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
(ABC) program The Health Report in April 2005. But their landmark paper did
not come to most doctors’ attention until a widely distributed medical
practice periodical, the Australian Prescriber, ran an editorial on the study early
in 2006.
On ABC’s The Health Report, Prof. Morgan, the paper’s principal author,
reiterated the study’s conclusions that chemotherapy had been oversold, and
pointed to the fact that relative risk reduction is being used as the yardstick of
efficacy, with its deceptively large percentage differences.
For balance, the show host, Norman Swan, interviewed Prof. Michael Boyer,
chief of medical oncology at Australia’s Royal Prince Albert Hospital, Sydney.
Unable to deny the validity of the study’s essential findings, Prof. Boyer
instead attempted to nitpick the authors’ methodology. He suggested that the
figure for chemotherapy’ s efficacy was actually somewhat higher than the study
had concluded. Yet even so, when pushed, the most favorable figure he could
come up with was that chemotherapy might actually be effective in 5 or 6
percent of cases (instead of around 2 percent).
Interviewed by Australian Prescriber, Prof. Boyer similarly commented: “If
you start…saying how much does chemotherapy add in the people that you might
actually use it [in], the numbers start creeping up…to 5 percent or 6
percent” (Segelov 2006).
In my opinion, this sort of hair-splitting damns chemotherapy with faint
praise. It actually confirms the central message of the three critics’ study. If
the best defense of chemotherapy that orthodox oncology can come up with is
that it may actually be effective for 5 or 6 percent of cancer patients,
rather than merely 2 percent, then surely it is high time for a radical
reassessment of the widespread use of this toxic modality in cancer treatment. Either
figure – 2 percent or 6 percent – will come as a shock to most patients
offered this type of treatment, and ought to generate serious doubt in the minds of
oncologists as to the ethics of offering chemotherapy without explicitly
warning patients of its unlikely prospects for success.
It was also astonishing that the orthodox Prof. Boyer complained that one of
the major shortcomings of the study was that it insisted on measuring
absolute instead of relative benefits. Asked by the interviewer whether there
weren’t violations of informed consent implicit in the way that benefits of
treatment were usually presented, Prof. Boyer defended the use of the more
impressive-sounding relative risk reduction:
“One of the problems of this [Morgan, ed.] paper is it uses absolute benefits
rather than relative benefits,” he protested: “…the relative benefit is
about a one third reduction in your risk of death.”
This, of course, is precisely the reverse of the argument made by the study’s
authors, who clearly demonstrated the misleading nature of relative risk
reduction as a means of describing the efficacy of chemotherapy.

Other Critics Emerge
Prof. Morgan and his Australian colleagues are not alone in criticizing the
pervasive use of relative risk as a means of inflating treatment efficacy.
There have been others in recent years who have also voiced concern about this
trend. For example, in a letter to the editor of the medical practice journal
American Family Physician, James McCormack, PharmD, a member of the faculty
of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, made this same
point about relative vs. absolute risk with great clarity.
Dr. McCormack took as an example the prescription of the bisphosphonate drugs
in the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. ..but identical issues apply
to the use of anticancer drugs. The journal in question had written that one
of those drugs produced almost “a 50 percent decrease” in the risk of new
fractures. Addressing himself to a hypothetical patient, Dr. McCormack
reinterpreted this statement in terms of absolute risk: “Mrs. Jones, your risk of
developing a…fracture over the next three years is approximately 8 percent.
If you take a drug daily for the next three years, that risk can be reduced
from 8 percent to around 5 percent, or a difference of just over 3 percent.” Of
course that sounds far less impressive than saying that taking the drug will
decrease the risk of fracture by almost half, even though technically both
are mathematically accurate ways of expressing the benefit to be gained by the
therapy.

The Good News and the Bad
News concerning conventional cancer treatments seems to come in two
varieties: good and bad. Good news, meaning that conventional treatments work well,
often generates widespread press coverage and enthusiastic statements from
health officials. On the other hand, bad news, such as the fact that
conventional treatments have generally been oversold, usually comes and goes unseen,
attracting no media attention whatsoever.
An example of the first kind is the recent announcement that for the first
time in 70 years, the absolute number of US cancer deaths had fallen. Andrew C.
von Eschenbach, MD, director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI),
called this “momentous news.” Similarly, Dr. Michael Thun, head of
epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society, said it was “a notable
milestone.” How big was the celebrated decline? As we reported in a recent newsletter,
deaths actually fell by a total of 370, from 557,272 in 2003 to 556,902 in
2004. Expressed as a percentage of the total, it represents a drop of seven
hundredths of one percent (0.066 percent).
Contrast the wildly enthusiastic coverage given to this tiny improvement in
the annual cancer death rate with the almost total media blackout (at least in
North America) on this critical paper from Australia. Yet nothing can
obscure the fact that chemotherapy, for most indications, has far less
effectiveness than the public is being led to believe. Dr. Morgan and his colleagues
deserve every reader’s gratitude for having pointed this out to their colleagues
around the world.

Phil’s comment

Comment posted about the books Cancer: The Complete Recovery Guide and Cancer Recovery Guide: 15 Alternative and Complementary Strategies for Restoring Health

Jonathan,

I bought both of your books and have read almost all of them. They

are excellent and should be on every list of recommended cancer

resources. Thank you for the excellent research and writing you did

to create them.

Phil

PolyMVA

Allen commented in a Yahoo health group discussion:

We have used it (PolyMVA) in multiple cancers in our family. Seems to work
better in solid tumor cancers and inconjuction with CoQ10 and immune
boosting therapies. They are working with a cancer foundation and a
quality of life study that helps offset the cost of the product
bringing it under 600.00/month. www.facr.org

In maximum use you only need to take for 3-6months typically then you
taper back to a maintance dose. In comparison to what clinics and
others are charging it is a bargain for what and how it was designed
to work. http://electrogenet ics.net/

The last i heard they are going through safety trials that were FDA
approved and then they will move to phase 2 human trials with the
compound. I dont know of any other proprietary supplement that is
being used directly for trials.

The tremendous results an oncologist Dr. Forsythe recieved in using
it in over 207 cancer patients all stage 4 was impressive and what
led to the trials and FDA approval.

Thats my experinces, good luck,
allen

Victorian life expectancy and diet

There’s really a lot of info on this site so do browse. This supports and extends the info and critical discussion in my two cancer books.  For more information go to www.fightingcancer.com

“This book tells me everything. Why didn’t my doctor tell me this?”- Rev. Bill Newbern

They were healthier than us – and even lived longer. So should we all copy the Victorian diet?

By Hazel Courteney
Daily Mail On-line 27th August 2008

For most people, the Victorian era evokes Dickensian scenes of wool mills, orphanages, and workhouses full of malnourished, overworked children, and adults living short, harsh lives.

But research, published next month in the Journal Of The Royal Society Of Medicine, has found that not only did many of our Victorian forebears live longer than we do today – but they were also healthier and had stronger immune systems.

‘When we examined the huge amount of Victorian medical records available from 1850-1900, it became evident that historical realities have been greatly distorted,’ says Dr Paul Clayton, medical pharmacologist at Oxford Brookes University.

‘We found that working-class Victorians ate far more than we do to sustain them through long manual working days.

‘Men consumed 4,000-5,000 calories daily, women around 3,000 calories, compared with an average of around 2,200 today.

‘Yet obesity was virtually unknown except in the upper-middle and wealthier classes.

‘In addition, they typically ate eight to ten portions of fruit and vegetables daily, in a diet that contained far higher levels of vitamins and minerals than occur in today’s nutrient-depleted, refined and processed foods.

‘They also consumed less salt, sugar, alcohol and tobacco.’

Co-author Dr Judith Rowbotham, a historian specialising in the Victorian era, based at Nottingham Trent University, adds: ‘Salt was used only as a flavouring, not as a preservative – preserved meats such as corned beef didn’t become available until the late 1880s.’

Tobacco was chewed, used in snuff or you could roll your own, but cigarettes did not go on sale until the late 1880s and it was mainly the wealthier classes who could afford them.

And although this was also the time when duty on sugar imported from the Caribbean was relaxed and confectionery, once a luxury of the upper classes, became more widely available to the working classes, sugar was still rarely consumed.

Consequently, the working classes consumed less-damaging foods, as their diet was far higher in unrefined, fresh foods. This meant that people were healthier.

Surprisingly, figures show that in the mid-Victorian period, cancers and heart disease were under 10 per cent of the levels we are experiencing today.

‘Prior to 1900, fruit and vegetables were cheap, as they were mainly grown in allotments or gardens. With the rapid growth of the rail networks, fresh produce could reach the cities quickly.

‘Even in London 4lb of freshly picked cherries or a large armful of watercress was a penny,’ says Rowbotham.

A poor man’s breakfast would have been two chunks of stoneground bread smeared with dripping, accompanied by a large bunch of watercress – rich in vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients.

Bread was always stone-ground, and made daily with large amounts of yeast, and the beer they drank was unfiltered which also contained a lot of yeast.

And it’s the yeast which was the secret to their strong immune systems.

‘Victorian foods were either made or unknowingly “contaminated” with yeasts that have recently been clinically proven in both animal and human studies to boost our innate immune function,’ says Dr Clayton.

‘Although mould and brown spots were often visible, these yeasts contain complex compounds called 1-3, 1-6 Beta Glucans which are beneficial to health.

‘And if you have a sufficient amount of them in your diet, they help the immune system fight off invasion by bacteria or viruses.’

Modern yeast-based foods such as processed mass produced breads do not contain these beta glucans; they are removed in the refining processes.

‘This removal of natural yeasts from today’s foods – due to our over-sanitised environment and intensive farming methods – means our ability to resist infection and disease has become compromised,’ adds Dr Clayton.

Their research shows that many Victorians survived into old age despite their only real form of defence against major infectious diseases like cholera and typhoid being in their nutrient dense diet, rich in beta glucans.

From the mid-19th century, the birth rate rose and deaths fell – people started living longer because they were better nourished than previously believed.

While infectious diseases were rife, Rowbotham points out that large numbers of people survived infection.

And while infant mortality was high and many women died in childbirth, the authors found that if children survived until the age of five, they went on to live healthier lives than we do today.

‘Once they survived the age of five,’ says Rowbotham, ‘adult life expectancy was 75 for men and 73 for women; and they generally remained in good health until their last few weeks of life.

Rowbotham and Clayton were surprised by the results and now believe that the current advice for five portions of fruit and veg a day is insufficient.

Clayton adds: ‘With growing obesity and the general lack of exercise, we would never recommend eating the large amounts the Victorians did in order to get sufficient nutrients, but the Government, as well as individuals, need to take seriously the issue of supplementation, whether it’s taking pills or developing a food fortification policy.’

Of the yeast extracts, Clayton concludes: ‘The 1-3, 1-6 Beta Glucans activate our natural defences and there are more than 1,000 published papers on their importance to our health; several cancer drugs are being developed which include them.

‘To improve our health we need to return to eating a Victorian-type diet, including breads made with plenty of yeast, and organically grown fruits and vegetables.

‘Alternatively, people can take purified beta glucan capsules, around 250-500mg daily, which are also safe for children.’

However, Clayton says that unless someone is eating a pound of traditional bread every day – which, with our sedentary lifestyle, isn’t recommended – plus ten portions of fruit and veg with added yeast, it would be impossible to ingest the amounts of beta glucans that Victorians did.

But he cautions: ‘Yeasts, including Brewers Yeast-based products and tablets, contain another compound called manno protein, which can trigger problems for anyone suffering gut conditions such as Coeliacs disease.

‘In this case, purified beta glucans capsules would be better. Otherwise, Brewers Yeast products and tablets (around 4-6 daily) are an excellent source.

‘Beta glucans are a great breakthrough in improving immune function – protecting us against infection, cancer and allergies.’

Comment

 

Here are the key points. Mainstream Cancer People always argue that the reason cancer rates are so high is because we are living longer. Not really true. the statistics are skewed not just by children dying early but women dying in childbirth too. Take the figures for adults aged 40 and life expectancy in Victorian times was very good. And cancer rates were about 2% (now they are close to 50%) – almost certainly because the food they were eating was mineral rich ( vegs were probably mainly cabbage and carrots, fruit mainly apples – limited in variety but good). Tobacco didn’t cause lung cancer – and probably didn’t start doing so until early 20th century when superphosphate fertilisers – which turned tobacco leaves yellow (Virginia leaf) – began to be used. The phosphorous in the leaf is toxic. Victorians smoked safe – dark – tobacco.

Cimetidine (Tagamet)

A further statement from grouppekurosawa.com:

Cimetidine (aka Tagamet), by lowering cyclic AMP levels in cells, can reactivate the immune response against cancer, HIV and other diseases while inhibiting angiogenesis and the growth of cancer cells. The daily dose is 800 mgs a day, 200 mgs four times a day.

Cancer: A Christian Perspective

Cancer: A Christian Perspective on Healing

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” And as Genesis goes on to say he created ‘every living creature’ and he saw it was good.

In short, all creation is God-created. We need therefore to treat it with respect – the earth, the living creatures that live on the earth, man, ourselves and our bodies. All is God-created. All is Good.

What then are we to do about cancer?

150 years ago, the cities of Europe and America must have been harsh places to live. There would have been little in the way of hygiene. Diets would have been strange – mainly consisting of meat and potatoes. Most men would have smoked tobacco. The air would have been foul from factory chimneys belching out smoke. And yet cancer rates were very low (about 1-2%). Some say this is because life expectancy was low. But the truth is life expectancy was only low because so many women died in childbirth. Those who lived to the age of 40 had a very similar life expectancy to our own. So this is not the reason. The Bible – written 2-3,000 years ago – talks of man’s life expectancy as being three score years and ten – so a life of 70 years was a reasonable expectation even then. But there was very little cancer.

I believe that the cause of cancer will be found to be the mineral depletion of the earth through modern farming methods which do not respect the earth – perhaps compounded by the concentration of toxic chemicals in our domestic environment – particularly the plastics. But this is just a guess. However, it is not the cause but the healing of cancer that concerns me here.

Attempting to kill cancer by nearly killing the host of the cancer – as we do with chemotherapy – cannot be wise, cannot be good – certainly is not respectful of what God has given us. A God-respecting approach must entail strengthening, not weakening the health of the person with cancer. ‘Curing’ cancer cannot mean eliminating cancer at all costs irrespective of the impact on the person harbouring the cancer. Attempting to ‘cure’ cancer by permanently harming the tissues and organs of the cancer patient’s body – as we do with radiation –is not an approach to cancer that is respectful of God’s creation.

So how can we attempt to cure cancer in a way that is respectful of God’s creation?

Felicity Corbin-Wheeler was faced with this question in the most direct way possible. She was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer, that is cancer that had spread widely throughout the body from the pancreas. This is the most fatal of all cancers. Most people given the same diagnosis are dead within months. Yet Felicity is alive and well today and cancer free (her website is www.felicitycorbinwheeler.org) – her cure? Extracts of apricot seed – otherwise known as laetrile – which she chose on the basis of Genesis 1:29.

Today, Felicity is not only alive, she is well. She is vibrantly healthy. And she reached her health in a way that was deliberately respectful of God’s creation.

I don’t believe that Felicity was so stupendously lucky that she found the only possible cure for cancer that exists. No. I believe that there are many ways of reaching health and Felicity’s way is just one of them. And all these ways share the characteristic that they are respectful of God’s creation. I have described many of these ways in my book Cancer: The Complete Recovery Guide – www.fightingcancer.com

Respect is at the heart of a true Christian vision of the world. Without respect there is only arrogance. Arrogance ultimately derives from taking the view that one has the unquestioned right to exercise power. When it comes to healing ourselves of cancer, no-one has that right.

Anti-worm cure for cancer?

Steve Martin at Grouppekurosawa.com wrote:

Worm Pills, an Effective Treatment for Malignant Melanoma and Other Cancers

This essay is reposted from our subscription blog in the public interest.
Mebendazole is a generic, inexpensive prescription medicine used to treat worm infections. This drug is called a spindle poison because it interrupts the formation of microtubules, cellular filaments that separate newly made DNA. Chemo drugs such as Taxol and alkylating agents are also spindle poisons, but they have toxicities that mebendazole does not have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebendazole

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-information/DR600879

In the last few years, a number of studies have found that mebendazole is a powerful inducer of apoptosis in a wide variety of cancer cells, both in culture dishes and mouse models.

In the following study, half maximal cytotoxic doses of mebendazole in the range 0.1 to 0.8 microM (VERY low) killed a wide diversity of cancer cells, including lung, breast, ovary, colon and osteosarcomas. These studies were also conducted in mice. Mebendazole also inhibited angiogenesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12231542&itool=pubmed_docsum

Unlike microtubule disruptive drugs such as Taxol and alkylating agents, mebendazole does not harm normal cells.

The following study was published this month. It shows that mebendazole kills two different strains of chemotherapy resistant melanoma cells. One strain contained a mutant p53 protein while the other harbored a normal p53 tumor suppresor protein. Mebandazole kills the cells equally. The half maximal cytotoxic dose was 0.32 microM.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=18667591&itool=pubmed_docsum

Cimetidine, the generic version of the anti-ulcer drug Tagamet, promotes the toxicity of mebendazole by inhibiting its degradation in the liver.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3663452&itool=pubmed_docsum

The average blood concentration of mebendazole after a single clinical dose is 1.67 microM. This value vastly exceeds the concentration of mebendazole needed to kill a host of different cancer cells.

Mebendazole is usually sold as a chewable tablet. When chewed and allowed to remain in the mouth for a short period, the mebendazole can enter the blood through the mucosal membranes of the mouth. Of course, it can also enter the blood via the GI tract. This drug is extremely non-toxic even in doses of 4.5 grams a day.

Microtubule inhibitors are THE target of interest for chemo drugs. In this case, a simple anti-worm drug inhibits microtubule functioning at low non-toxic concentrations. In a culture dish and in mice, mebendazole induces apoptosis in a diversity of cancer cells at extremely low concentrations.

Unfortunately, this drug will NEVER enter clinical trials as a treatment for cancer.  There is no money to be made. Fortunately, physicians can prescribe this drug for the treatment of cancer without a clinical trial. This blog and the referenced articles contain all the scientific justification that they will need.

IV vitamin C – negative view

We have found zero results with high dose I.V. Vit C in many cancer patients. It has shown continued cancer growth seen in combination of other methods. This was only a caution to those simply depend on Vit C ignoring other methods.

This is what we advise – to consume VitC in natural form. This applies even to other valuable vitamins and minerals. Of course eating only Asparagus wouldn’t cure cancers.

Vincent wrote:
Fresh asparagus is very high in ascorbate: 2,500 calories can contain
as much as 12 grams. Seven years ago I got a call from an elderly
woman with non-small cell lung cancer. She had no money for the
usual meds. I told her to eat plenty of asparagus with every meal
even if it came from a can. What would she be afraid of — getting
cancer 30 years from now? The woman is still alive with no evidence
of cancer.

lemongrass and cancer

The Big Book: Cancer: The Complete Recovery Guide

The Small Book: Cancer Recovery Guide: 15 Alternative and Complementary Strategies for Restoring Health  –  For more information go to www.fightingcancer.com

“This book tells me everything. Why didn’t my doctor tell me this?” – Rev Bill Newbern

LEMONGRASS & CANCER

Fresh Lemon Grass Drink Causes Apoptosis
>
> http://tinyurl. com/59whzy <http://tinyurl. com/59whzy>
>
> Fresh Lemon Grass Drink Causes Apoptosis to Cancer Cells
>
> (apoptosis) noun: a type of cell death in which the cell uses
> specialized
> cellular machinery to kill itself; a cell suicide mechanism that
> enables
> metazoans to control cell number and eliminate cells that threaten the
> animal’s survival.
> (Embedded image moved to file: pic16827.jpg)
>
> Fresh lemon grass fields in Israel become Mecca for cancer patients
> By Allison Kaplan Sommer April 02, 2006
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ******
>
> A drink with as little as one gram of lemon grass contains enough
> citral
> to prompt cancer cells to commit suicide in the test tube.
>
> Israeli researchers find way to make cancer cells self-destruct -Ben
> Gurion University
>
> At first, Benny Zabidov, an Israeli agriculturalist who grows
> greenhouses
> full of lush spices on a pastoral farm in Kfar Yedidya in the Sharon
> region, couldn’t understand why so many cancer patients from around
> the
> country were showing up on his doorstep asking for fresh lemon grass.
> It
> turned out that their doctors had sent them. ‘They had been told to
> drink
> eight glasses of hot water with fresh lemon grass steeped in it on the
> days that they went for their radiation and chemotherapy treatments,’
> Zabidov told ISRAEL21c. ‘And this is the place you go to in Israel for
> fresh lemon grass.’
>
> It all began when researchers at Ben Gurion University of the Negev
> discovered last year that the lemon aroma in herbs like lemon grass
> kills
> cancer cells in vitro, while leaving healthy cells unharmed. The
> research
> team was led by Dr. Rivka Ofir and Prof. Yakov Weinstein, incumbent
> of the
> Albert Katz Chair in Cell-Differentiatio n and Malignant Diseases,
> from the
> Department of Microbiology and Immunology at BGU.
>
> (Embedded image moved to file: pic09961.jpg)
>
> Citral is the key component that gives the lemony aroma and taste in
> several herbal plants such as lemon grass (Cymbopogon citratus),
> melissa
> (Melissa officinalis) and verbena (Verbena officinalis. )
>
> According to Ofir, the study found that citral causes cancer cells to
> ‘commit suicide: using apoptosis, a mechanism called programmed cell
> death.’ A drink with as little as one gram of lemon grass contains
> enough
> citral to prompt the cancer cells to commit suicide in the test tube.
>
> The BGU investigators checked the influence of the citral on cancerous
> cells by adding them to both cancerous cells and normal cells that
> were
> grown in a petri dish. The quantity added in the concentrate was
> equivalent to the amount contained in a cup of regular tea using one
> gram
> of lemon herbs in hot water. While the citral killed the cancerous
> cells,
> the normal cells remained unharmed.
>
> The findings were published in the scientific journal Planta Medica,
> which
> highlights research on alternative and herbal remedies. Shortly
> afterwards, the discovery was featured in the popular Israeli press.
> Why does it work? Nobody knows for certain, but the BGU scientists
> have a
> theory. ‘In each cell in our body, there is a genetic program which
> causes
> programmed cell death. When something goes wrong, the cells divide
> with no
> control and become cancer cells. In normal cells, when the cell
> discovers
> that the control system is not operating correctly – for example,
> when it
> recognizes that a cell contains faulty genetic material following cell
> division – it triggers cell death,’ explains Weinstein. ‘This
> research may
> explain the medical benefit of these herbs.’
> The success of their research led them to the conclusion that herbs
> containing citral may be consumed as a preventative measure against
> certain cancerous cells. As they learned of the BGU findings in the
> press,
> many physicians in Israel began to believe that while the research
> certainly needed to be explored further, in the meantime it would be
> advisable for their patients, who were looking for any possible tool
> to
> fight their condition, to try to harness the cancer-destroying
> properties
> of citral.
> That’s why Zabidov’s farm – the only major grower of fresh lemon
> grass in
> Israel – has become a pilgrimage destination for these patients.
> Luckily,
> they found themselves in sympathetic hands. Zabidov greets visitors
> with a
> large kettle of aromatic lemon grass tea, a plate of cookies, and a
> supportive attitude. ‘My father died of cancer, and my wife’s sister
> died
> young because of cancer,’ said Zabidov. ‘So I understand what they are
> dealing with. And I may not know anything about medicine, but I’m a
> good
> listener. And so they tell me about their expensive painful
> treatments and
> what they’ve been through. I would never tell them to stop being
> treated,
> but it’s great that they are exploring alternatives and drinking the
> lemon
> grass tea as well.’
>
> Zabidov knew from a young age that agriculture was his calling. At
> age 14,
> he enrolled in the Kfar Hayarok Agricultural high school. After his
> army
> service, he joined an idealistic group which headed south, in the
> Arava
> desert region, to found a new moshav (agricultural settlement) called
> Tsofar. ‘We were very successful; we raised fruits and vegetables,
> and,’
> he notes with a smile, ‘We raised some very nice children.’
> On a trip to Europe in the mid-80s, he began to become interested in
> herbs. Israel, at the time, was nothing like the trend-conscious
> cuisine-oriented country it is today, and the only spices being grown
> commercially were basics like parsley, dill, and coriander. Wandering
> in
> the Paris market, looking at the variety of herbs and spices, Zabidov
> realized that there was a great export potential in this niche. He
> brought
> samples back home with him, ‘which was technically illegal,’ he says
> with
> a guilty smile, to see how they would grow in his desert greenhouses.
> Soon, he was growing basil, oregano, tarragon, chives, sage, marjoram
> and
> melissa, and mint just to name a few.
>
> His business began to outgrow his desert facilities, and so he
> decided to
> move north, settling in the moshav of Kfar Yedidya, an hour and a half
> north of Tel Aviv. He is now selling ‘several hundred kilos’ of lemon
> grass per week, and has signed with a distributor to package and put
> it in
> health food stores. Zabidov has taken it upon himself to learn more
> about
> the properties of citral, and help his customers learn more, and has
> invited medical experts to his farm to give lectures about how the
> citral
> works and why.
> (Embedded image moved to file: pic00491.jpg)
> He also felt a responsibility to know what to tell his customers
> about its
> use. ‘When I realized what was happening, I picked up the phone and
> called
> Dr. Weinstein at Ben-Gurion University, because these people were
> asking
> me exactly the best way to consume the citral. He said to put the
> loose
> grass in hot water, and drink about eight glasses each day.’
>
> Zabidov is pleased by the findings, not simply because it means
> business
> for his farm, but because it might influence his own health. Even
> before
> the news of its benefits were demonstrated, he and his family had been
> drinking lemon grass in hot water for years, ‘just because it tastes
> good.’

The Question of Proof

The Question of ‘Proof’

 

The standard rejection of so-called ‘Alternative’ approaches to cancer treatment is that they are ‘unproven’ that they have never been tested, that they are based solely on faith. This is such a deviant view of the situation that it needs to be rebuffed.

 

First we need to understand what ‘proof’ means in a medical context. It has one meaning only: that the drug, therapy or procedure has been compared with a placebo in a double-blind clinical trial. Anything that has not been subjected to such a procedure is ‘unproven’. One might add that the person or institution establishing the truth should be highly respected – otherwise  the ‘proof’ may be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

It is true that most ‘alternative’ approaches to treating cancer are unproven by this measure – but so too are most mainstream methods of cancer treatment.

 

Surgery is entirely unproven as is radiation therapy. Neither of these procedures has ever been subjected to a double-blind clinical trial. In the case of surgery it is hard to imagine indeed how it could be tested in this way. Chemotherapy, on the other hand, has – for the vast majority of cancers – been absolutely disproven as an effective therapy. Against this for a handful of cancers it has been proven to have a degree of effectiveness – in some cases a very high degree. Nevertheless, for the vast majority of the cancers for which it is prescribed it is known to be useless.

 

If proof cannot be demonstrated for a drug, therapy or procedure then we must reduce our requirements slightly and seek not proof but evidence.

 

Evidence can be of various kinds. It can be based on personal experience, lab tests or animal studies. It can be anecdotal, statistical, or based on epidemiological analyses. All of these are capable of providing support for or against any therapeutic proposition. We may, for example, decide that surgery is appropriate because doctors have used it effectively for many years with a reasonable degree of effectiveness or (this is entirely invented) we can reject surgery on the basis that  the five people we knew who had surgery died faster than the one person we knew who opted for other approaches. Both of these are evidence-based approaches and it is really a psychological matter as to which carries most force for us. There is no way of determining objectively which of the two responses to surgery is more correct.

 

On this basis, there is a vast amount of theoretical and experimental support for the vast majority of herbs, supplement and vitamins – and even some of the energy machines. The story of Rife’s machine has at its heart the suppression of experimental results favouring the use of the machine.

 

So, to put it simply, neither surgery nor radiation have any better ‘scientific’ support than do high dose IV vitamin C therapy or PolyMVA, to take two examples of alternative therapies off the top of my head. That’s the simple truth of it.