May 8

Cancer and Hormones

This week's news that a big drop in breast cancer cases might be due to millions of women going off menopause hormones may lead even more of them to abandon the pills. 

But doctors worry that women with severe menopausal symptoms will overreact to the risks and deny themselves the benefits of hormones. 

"There are some women who really require treatment. ... I worry that they will be talked out of it," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, a women's health expert at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. 

Hormone use plummeted after a 2002 study found that it raised the risk of breast cancer, heart disease and other problems. Before that, the pills were thought to prevent many of those conditions, and doctors prescribed them as little fountains of youth. 

On Thursday, researchers reported that the rate of breast cancer in the United States dropped more than 7 percent in 2003, the year after that landmark study. The backlash against hormones is considered the leading explanation for the decline. 

Some women are still using hormone therapy "because their doctors genuinely believe that it prevents some diseases," said Dr. Isaac Schiff of Massachusetts General Hospital, who headed a panel for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that recommended in 2004 that doctors not withhold the treatment from women who truly need it. 

But that's not as many women as you might think, Manson said. 

About 2 million women start menopause each year in the United States, but only about one-fourth have moderate to severe symptoms lasting longer than four years, said Manson, whose new book, "Hot Flashes, Hormones & Your Health," includes a flowchart to help women decide whether to use hormones, which type and for how long. 

The key questions a woman should weigh: 

• Am I already at risk of heart disease, blood clots or breast cancer that would make hormones a bad idea? 

• Are my symptoms truly disrupting my life? 

One thing doctors agree on about hormone therapy: It works. 

Nancy Nixon used it for six years to treat headaches, night sweats and hot flashes until she was diagnosed with breast cancer 11 years ago. 

"It does make me feel sad" to no longer be able to use it, said Nixon, who manages the call-in line for Y-ME, a cancer support group. "But if someone said to me, `Chocolate causes breast cancer,' I would stop eating it even though I love it." 

Schiff said that when he tells patients of the potential breast cancer risk, "some go into a panic and say, `I'll just suffer.'" 

Manson called that unfortunate. 

"There are ways to reap those benefits and minimize the risk," she said. 

She and the gynecology group offer these suggestions: 

• Take the lowest dose for the shortest time — two or three years if possible. Start out small and add more medication if symptoms do not abate. 

• Do not take hormones to try to prevent heart disease; they don't. 

• Never take estrogen without progestin if you still have a uterus because that raises the risk of uterine cancer. 

• Try periodically to cut your dose and wean yourself off. 

"It's important that women do try to discontinue," and not just stay on the pills for many years, Manson said. 

May 8

Long Term Use of Cancer Pill Could Affect Womens Fertility!

BOSTON (Reuters) - Long-term use of the cancer pill Gleevec may produce fertility problems in women, Greek doctors reported on Wednesday.

Chemotherapy and radiation have long been known to damage the fertility of patients, but little is known about more targeted drugs such as Gleevec, known generically as imatinib.

Dr. Constantinos Christopoulos of the Amalia Fleming General Hospital in Athens and colleagues reported on the case of a 30-year-old woman with chronic myeloid leukemia who stopped menstruating after two years of taking Gleevec, made by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

She had terminated a pregnancy after the cancer was discovered, initially received 400 milligrams per day, and the dose had been boosted to 600 milligrams six months before her periods started to become unusually light or irregular, Christopoulos and colleagues wrote in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.

After the periods stopped, ultrasound revealed that the number of eggs in her ovaries was greatly reduced, they said.

"These findings suggest that prolonged administration of imatinib may have profound effects on female fertility," the Christopoulos team wrote.

"The true incidence, possible dose dependence, and reversibility of imatinib-induced ovarian failure should be examined in future studies."

It is not the first time the drug has been linked to reproductive issues. The Journal published a report in 2004 of a man who also developed fertility problems while on an even higher dose -- 800 milligrams daily.

Gleevec is a so-called targeted drug that supposedly affects a protein active in tumors, It is not supposed to be taken during pregnancy. The drug is also approved for certain tumors of the intestinal tract.

May 8

Chemo...Good, Bad...Indifferent

Chemo:

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United StatesHalf of all men and one-third of all women in the US will develop cancer during their lifetimes. Today, millions of people are living with cancer or have had cancer. The risk of developing most types of cancer can be reduced by changes in a person's lifestyle, for example, by quitting smoking and eating a better diet. The sooner a cancer is found and treatment begins, the better are the chances for living for many years. - American Cancer Society Although the American Cancer Society and many other orthodox medically endorsed organizations state that prevention of cancer is dependent on diet and lifestyle choices, they do nothing to help people take the next step toward such practices! Instead, We The People, are generally left with the following failed methods.


Chemotherapy / RadiationIn the Physicians Desk Reference, available in any library or doctor's office, the top 10 chemotherapy drugs used in the USA all have cancer as a listed side effect. In fact, depending on how you interpret the statistics, more cancer patients die from the chemotherapy than of the cancer. The medical statisticians count these deaths as a success for chemotherapy because the patient did not die of cancer. A select few know that chemotherapy drugs are not FDA approved. They are legally administered under the "Rule of Probable Cause", which states that experimental drugs may be used if the side effect of the drug is no worse than the end effect of the disease. In fact, every chemotherapy bottle is stamped "For Experimental Use Only" and the patient must sign a release before the doctor will prescribe or administer it.


Do We Need A New Approach to Cancer?
In 1971 Richard Nixon announced the War on Cancer, and promised a cure by the 1977 bicentennial. In each of the 25 plus years since, more Americans have died of cancer than the year before. The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment. Scientific American featured a recent cover story entitled: "The War on Cancer -- It's Being Lost." In it, eminent epidemiologist John C. Bailar III, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University cited the relentless increase in cancer deaths in the face of growing use of toxic chemotherapy. He concluded that scientists must look in new directions if they are ever to make progress against this unremitting killer.

Adding its voice, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, decrying the failure of conventional therapy to stop the rise in breast cancer deaths, noted the discrepancy between public perception and reality. "If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the [medical] profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from this cancer" it observed. Noting that conventional therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery -- had been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to "challenge dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines."

John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, published a devastating 1985 critique in Scientific American. "Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not possible to detect any sudden changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that could be credited to chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be established." In fact, chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers -- testicular, Hodgkin's, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors -- lung, colon, breast, etc. -- chemotherapy is NOT curative.

In an article entitled "Chemotherapy: Snake-Oil Remedy?" that appeared in the Los Angeles Times of 1/9/87, Dr. Martin F. Shapiro explained that while "some oncologists inform their patients of the lack of evidence that treatments work...others may well be misled by scientific papers that express unwarranted optimism about chemotherapy. Still others respond to an economic incentive. Physicians can earn much more money running active chemotherapy practices than they can providing solace and relief.. to dying patients and their families." Dr. Shapiro is hardly alone. Alan C. Nixon, PhD, Past President of the American Chemical Society wrote that "As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."

In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than 3/4 of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. 64 of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reason? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.

Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel PhD also found in a similar 1989 study that "the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public." Breast cancer activist Rose Kushner wrote that by 1981 "indiscriminate, automatic adjuvant chemotherapy was replacing the Halsted radical mastectomy as therapeutic overkill in the United States." Thomas Nealon MD, Professor of Surgery at NYU School of Medicine, concluded in 1990 that "The treatment of this tumor now has slipped from too much surgery to too much adjuvant therapy."

Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemo use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths. Oncologist Albert Braverman MD wrote in 1991 that "no disseminated neoplasm (cancer) incurable in 1975 is curable today...Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Why the growth in chemotherapy in the face of such failure? A look at the financial interrelationships between a large cancer center such as Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the companies that make billions selling chemo drugs is revealing. James Robinson III, Chairman of the MSKCC Board of Overseers and Managers, is a director of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's largest producer of chemotherapy drugs. Richard Gelb, Vice-Chairman of the MSKCC board is Bristol-Myers Chairman of the Board. Richard Furlaud, another MSKCC board member, recently retired as Bristol Myers' president. Paul Marks MD, MSKCC's President and CEO, is a director of Pfizer.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There are more and more reports by establishment oncologists doubting the value of chemotherapy, even to the point of rejecting it outright. One of these, cancer biostatistician Dr. Ulrich Abel, of Heidelberg, Germany, issued a monograph titled Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer in 1990. Epithelial cancers comprise the most common forms of adenocarcinoma: lung, breast, prostate, colon, etc. After ten years as a statistician in clinical oncology, Abel became increasingly uneasy. "A sober and unprejudiced analysis of the literature," he wrote, "has rarely revealed any therapeutic success by the regimens in question in treating advanced epithelial cancer." While chemotherapy is being used more and more extensively, more than a million people die worldwide of these cancers annually - and a majority have received some form of chemotherapy before dying. Abel further concluded, after polling hundreds of cancer doctors, "The personal view of many oncologists seems to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public." Abel cited studies that have shown "that many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer." (The Cancer Chronicles, December, 1990.) 
"Even though toxic drugs often do effect a response, such as a partial or complete shrinkage of the tumor, this reduction does not prolong expected survival," Abel finds. "Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns more aggressively than before, since the chemo fosters the growth of resistant cell lines." Besides, the chemo has severely damaged the body's own defenses, the immune system and often the kidneys as well as the liver. 
In an especially dramatic table, Dr. Abel displays the results of chemotherapy in patients with various types of cancers, as the improvement of survival rates, compared to untreated patients. This table shows:

-In colorectal cancer: no evidence survival is improved. 
-Gastric cancer: no clear evidence. 
-Pancreatic cancer: Study completely negative. Longer survival in control (untreated) group.
-Bladder: no clinical trial done. 
-Breast cancer: No direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival; its use is "ethically questionable." 
-Ovarian cancer: no direct evidence. 
-Cervix and uterus: No improved survival. 
-Head and neck: no survival benefit but occasional shrinkage of tumors.


The Nov. 17, 1994 Wall Street Journal, in a front page article on political pressure being exerted for insurance companies to pay for bone marrow transplants in advanced breast cancer, experts give a totally negative report on this approach. The procedure, called ABMT (Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant) involves temporarily removing some of the patient's bone marrow, applying a potentially lethal dose of chemotherapy, then returning the marrow to the patient's body. The cost of this procedure is in excess of $100,000.00. 
The University of Colorado's Dr. Jones, continues the Journal, claims that, with conventional chemotherapy, not more than 2% of patients with spreading breast cancer get a positive response. A non-profit independent technology assessment agency, the Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI), says that for the average woman with the most advanced form of breast cancer, the high dose ABMT procedure is not only worthless, but also likely to shorten her life. This report by the ECRI is based on an analysis of 40 studies of ABMT and similar procedures involving a total of 1,017 patients, and 61 studies covering 4,852 patients who had conventional chemotherapy Dr. Nelson Erlick, the project's lead analyst, concluded that "many patients are led to believe that this (ABMT) is a successful therapy. We found no evidence whatsoever that it provides any benefit."

May 8

Expo West Record attendance turnout

Natural Products Expo West/SupplyExpo 2008 Continues Upward Climb with Record Attendance

BOULDER, Colo. (March 19, 2008) — More than 52,000 retailers, manufacturers, functional ingredient suppliers and industry professionals attended the country's largest natural, organic, and healthy products trade show, Natural Products Expo West/Supply Expo 2008 (www.expowest.com), an increase of 11 percent over last year's attendance. In its 28th year, Natural Products Expo West/Supply Expo, produced by New Hope Natural Media, a division of Penton Media, attracted a record 3,392 exhibits to the Anaheim Convention Center in Calif.

Keynote speaker, The New York Times best-selling author, Michael Pollan told a capacity crowd to think about "not just what is in our food but how we enjoy our food," and reminded the audience that shopping is part of the pleasure of food.

The $57 billion dollar natural and organic products industry continues to enjoy brisk sales with strong growth in certified organic meat and seafood, beer and wine, pet products, herbs and botanicals, and personal care, according to The Natural Foods Merchandiser's 2007 Market Overview. Innovation continues in this marketplace with new biodegradable goods, from housewares and home cleaning products, to certified fair trade products and organic fiber fashions and bedding.

"Each year, Natural Products Expo West gives a sneak peek into what the public will find in America's stores tomorrow," said Fred Linder, president of New Hope Natural Media. "This year, more buyers from the full retail spectrum—from supermarkets, pharmacies, club and convenience stores to independent co-ops and ethnic markets—saw more products than ever before."

Click here for the whole story.

May 8

Patrick Swayze diagnosed with pancreatic cancer

Patrick Swayze, 55, has had an enviable life. The actor, dancer and former professional figure skater lives close to nature on ranches he owns in California and New Mexico, where he raises cattle and Arabian horses and maintains a wildlife preserve. He's been married for more than 30 years to Lisa Niemi, whom he met in dance class. And of course famous for his starring role in "Dirty Dancing" (1987) which became a cultural touchstone for a whole generation. Subsequent hits like "Ghost" with Demi Moore (1990) solidified his image as good-guy heart throb.

Now he faces pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest forms of the disease. Less than 5 percent of patients live five years or more after diagnosis; most die within a year. The American Cancer Society estimates that 37,680 Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year, most them will be over 65 years of age. About a quarter of all cases are related to smoking, and diabetes and obesity are considered to be risk factors for the disease. (Swayze smoked.) Excessive drinking may also be a risk factor. 

Why is it so deadly? Patients rarely know they're sick before the cancer has reached a late stage. "Often patients first go to the doctor when they notice weight loss," says Edgar Staren, chief medical officer of the Cancer Treatment Centers of America, based in Zion, Ill. Then in a matter of days or weeks, they may develop symptoms of jaundice (about 80 percent do), which include yellow eyes and skin, clay-colored stools and dark urine. Normally, bile in the liver passes through a duct  to the bowel, and turns stools brown. When the duct is blocked by a tumor in the pancreas, a fish-shaped organ that sits behind the stomach, it colors the skin and urine instead.

Some pancreatic-cancer patients may go into surgery to remove the tumor, but often the surgeons will discover in the operating room that the cancer has spread or involves blood vessels, circumstances that make it inadvisable to remove the tumor. And even when the tumor is removed, it returns in three quarters of all cases, despite chemotherapy. Patients who do not have jaundice generally experience pain and are not usually likely candidates for surgery. 

Staren stresses that the difficult physical and mental effects of the disease can be addressed by psychological support, pain relief and procedures that reroute the bile. With state-of-the-art care, patients often actually feel better than they did before the diagnosis, he says. However, when  symptoms return, the patient typically dies within days or weeks. Swayze has said through his representatives that he intends to continue with his normal schedule, and hopes to star in a pilot about an FBI agent, which is under consideration by the A&E network. He is being treated at Stanford Cancer Center at Stanford University by Dr. George Fisher, an oncologist who released a statement recently saying: "Patrick has a very limited amount of disease and he appears to be responding well to treatment thus far."

© 2008

May 8

Make Plans to Attend Las Vegas Expo in July!

Make plans to attend the Natural Marketplace 2008 EXPO
Designed exclusively for the natural products industry.
From the information-packed seminar program to the dynamic exhibit floor to networking and special events, Natural Marketplace 2008 connects you with buyers seeking to grow their business. Join the Natural Products association community in Las Vegas July 17-19 for this great event.
Over 650 booths, Natural Marketplace is the perfect place to exhibit for manufacturers, brokers, and distributors.

For booth availabilty call 800 966 6632 ext 247

Conference ~July 17-19
Trade Show July 18-19



Sands Expo and Convention Center @ the Venitian Resort Hotel

more info click here....

http://www.naturalproductsassoc.org

May 8

Exciting New Updates and New Site Additions...

We are excited about new updates and additions that are coming to the site at the end of the month! New things include a cancer wizard-connecting you to members, recovered patients, clinics and physicians and health food stores in your area. Live chat! Updated user friendly home page and most exciting our Online Store featuring books and Cd's with valuable information!

  • We want to make sure we have as much information as possible along with all the other changes so we are encouraging you to share your stories-whether you are a survivor (please post under Forums/Survivor Stories as well!) , or a friend, spouse or family member of someone with cancer, we encourage you to add your story to your profile on your home page this month. There are a lot of blank profiles out there-let's fill 'em up! Even a few sentences can impact someone's life!
  • If you have information to share with us in regards to clinics or physicians you reccomend we would love to contact them and get them listed under our clinic sections.
  • If you are a recovered cancer survivor we would love to add you our growing list so people can email you or call you if they need to talk to someone who can relate first hand to what they are going through.

Please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if you need help posting, want to be added to our recovered patient list, or if you have a clinic or physician to refer to our clinic section!

Thank you for your continued support of this site, encouraging and sharing with others!!

May 8

A Magnesium Defficiency Increases Cancer Risk Significantly

A Magnesium Defficiency Increases Cancer Risk Significantly

by Mark Sircus Ac., OMD (see all articles by this author)


(NaturalNews) There is a power and a force in magnesium that cannot be equaled anywhere else in the world of medicine. There is no substitute for magnesium in human physiology; nothing comes even close to it in terms of its effect on overall cell physiology. Without sufficient magnesium, the body accumulates toxins and acid residues, degenerates rapidly, and ages prematurely. It goes against a gale wind of medical science to ignore magnesium chloride used transdermally in the treatment of any chronic or acute disorder, especially cancer.

Magnesium repletion produced rapid disappearance of the periosteal tumors.

Aleksandrowicz et al in Poland conclude that inadequacy of Mg (Magnesium) and antioxidants are important risk factors in predisposing to leukemias. Other researchers found that 46% of the patients admitted to an ICU (Intensive Care Unit) in a tertiary cancer center presented hypomagnesemia.

They concluded that the incidence of hypomagnesemia in critically ill cancer patients is high. In animal studies we find that Mg deficiency has caused lymphopoietic neoplasms in young rats. A study of rats surviving Mg deficiency sufficient to cause death in convulsions during early infancy in some, and cardiorenal lesions weeks later in others, disclosed that some of survivors had thymic nodules or lymphosarcoma.

One would not normally think that Magnesium (Mg) deficiency can paradoxically increase the risk of, or protect against cancer yet we will find that just as severe dehydration or asphyxiation can cause death, magnesiumdeficiency can directly lead to cancer. When you consider that over 300 enzymes and ion transport require magnesium and that its role in fatty acid and phospholipid acid metabolism affects permeability and stability of membranes, we can see that magnesium deficiency would lead to physiological decline in cells setting the stage for cancer. Anything that weakens cell physiology will lead to the infections that surround and penetrate tumor tissues. These infections are proving to be an integral part of cancer. Magnesium deficiency poses a direct threat to the health of our cells. Without sufficient amounts, our cells calcify and rot in. Breeding grounds for yeast and fungi colonies they become, invaders all too ready to strangle our life force and kill us.

Over 300 different enzymes systems rely upon magnesium to facilitate their catalytic action, including ATP metabolism, creatine-kinase activation, adenylate-cyclase, and sodium-potassium-ATPase.

It is known that carcinogenesis induces magnesium distribution disturbances, which cause magnesium mobilization through blood cells and magnesium depletion in non-neoplastic tissues. Magnesium deficiency seems to be carcinogenic, and in case of solid tumors, a high level of supplemented magnesium inhibits carcinogenesis. Both carcinogenesis and magnesium deficiency increase the plasma membrane permeability and fluidity. Scientists have in fact found out that there is much less Mg++ binding to membrane phospholipids ofcancer cells, than to normal cell membranes.

Magnesium protects cells from aluminum, mercury, lead, cadmium, beryllium and nickel.

Magnesium in general is essential for the survival of our cells but takes on further importance in the age of toxicity where our bodies are being bombarded on a daily basis with heavy metals. Glutathione requires magnesium for its synthesis. Glutathione synthetase requires y-glutamyl cysteine, glycine, ATP, and magnesium ions to formglutathione. In magnesium deficiency, the enzyme y-glutamyl transpeptidase is lowered. According to Dr. Russell Blaylock, low magnesium is associated with dramatic increases in free radical generation as well as glutathione depletion and this is vital since glutathione is one of the few antioxidant molecules known to neutralize mercury. Without the cleaning and chelating work of glutathione (magnesium), cells begin to decay as cellular filth and heavy metals accumulate; excellent environments to attract deadly infection/cancer.

There is drastic change in ionic flux from the outer and inner cell membranes both in the impaired
membranes of cancer, and in Mg deficiency.

Anghileri et al proposed that modifications of cell membranes are principal triggering factors in cell transformation leading to cancer. Using cells from induced cancers, they found that there is much less magnesium binding to membrane phospholipids of cancer cells, than to normal cell membranes. It has been suggested that Mg deficiency may trigger carcinogenesis by increasing membrane permeability. Magnesium deficient cell membranes seem to have a smoother surface than normal, and decreased membrane viscosity, analogous to changes in human leukemia cells. There is drastic change in ionic flux from the outer and inner cell membranes (higher Ca and Na; lower Mg and K levels), both in the impaired membranes of cancer, and of Mg deficiency. And we find that lead (Pb) salts are more leukemogenic when given to Mg deficient rats, than when they are given to Mg-adequate rats, suggesting that Mg is protective.

Magnesium has an effect on a variety of cell membranes through a process involving calcium channels and ion transport mechanisms. Magnesium is responsible for the maintenance of the trans-membrane gradients of sodium and potassium.

Long ago, researchers postulated that magnesium supplementation of those who are Mg deficient, like chronicalcoholics, might decrease emergence of malignancies and now modern researchers have found that all types ofalcohol -- wine, beer or liquor -- add equally to the risk of developing breast cancer in women. The researchers, led by Dr. Arthur Klatsky of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program in Oakland, Calif., revealed their findings at a meeting of the European Cancer Organization in Barcelona in late 2007. It was found that women who had one or two drinks a day increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 10 percent. Women who had more than three drinks a day raised their risk by 30 percent. The more one drinks, the more one drives down magnesium levels.

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer killer of women, after lung cancer. It will be diagnosed in 1.2 million people globally this year and will kill 500,000.

According to data published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2002, 4 percent of all breast cancers -- about 44,000 cases a year -- in the United Kingdom are due to alcohol consumption. It's an important question though, and one not asked by medical or health officials, is it the alcohol itself or the resultant drop in magnesium levels that is cancer provoking? Though some studies have shown that light to moderate alcohol use can protect against heart attacks, it does us no good to drink if it causes cancer. Perhaps if magnesium was supplemented in women drinkers who were studied, there would have been no increase of cancer from drinking.

Alcohol has always been known to deplete magnesium, and is one of the first supplements given to alcoholics when they stop and attempt to detoxify and withdraw.

Researchers from the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota have just concluded that diets rich in magnesium reduced the occurrence of colon cancer. A previous study from Sweden reported that women with the highest magnesium intake had a 40 per cent lower risk of developing the cancer than those with the lowest intake of the mineral.

Pretreatment hypomagnesemia has been reported in young leukemic children, 78% of whom have histories
of anorexia, and have excessive gut and urinary losses of Mg.

Several studies have shown an increased cancer rate in regions with low magnesium levels in soil and drinkingwater, and the same for selenium. In Egypt, the cancer rate was only about 10% of that in Europe and America. In the rural fellah, it was practically non-existent. The main difference was an extremely high magnesium intake of 2.5 to 3g in these cancer-free populations, ten times more than in most western countries.

The School of Public Health at the Kaohsiung Medical College in Taiwan found that magnesium also exerts a protective effect against gastric cancer, but only for the group with the highest levels.

If we looked, it would probably be very difficult to find a cancer patient with anywhere near normal levels of cellular magnesium; meaning cancer probably does not exist in a physical cellular environment full of magnesium. It makes perfect medical sense to saturate the body with magnesium through transdermal means. Magnesium deficiency has been implicated in a host of clinical disorders but the medical establishment just cannot get it through its thick skull that it is an important medicine.

It is as if the collective medical profession had just pulled the plug on medical intelligence. In fact it has done exactly this and it seems too late for it to redefine itself, which is a tragedy. Though magnesium improves the internal production of defensive substances, such as antibodies and considerably improves the operational activity of white granulocytic blood cells (shown by Delbert with magnesium chloride), and contributes to many other functions that insure the integrity of cellular metabolism, no one thinks to use it in cancer as a primary treatment. It is even worse than this, the medical establishment does not even use magnesium as a secondary treatment or even use it at all and gladly uses radiation and chemo therapy, both of which force magnesium levels down further.

To not replete cellular magnesium levels would be negligent, especially in the case of cancer where a person's life is on the line. An oncologist who ignores his patient's magnesium levels would be analogous to an emergency room physician not rushing resuscitation when a person stops breathing. If one elects to have or has already had chemotherapy, they have four times the reason to pay attention to a concentrated protocol aimed at replenishing full magnesium cellular stores.

Magnesium chloride is the first and most important item in any person's cancer treatment strategy. Put in the clearest terms possible, our suggestion from the first day on the Survival Medicine Cancer Protocol is to almost drown oneself in transdermally applied magnesium chloride. It should be the first, not the last thing, we think of when it comes to cancer. It takes about three to four months to drive up cellular magnesium levels to where they should be when treated intensely transdermally but within days patients will commonly experience its life saving medical/healing effects. For many people whose bodies are starving for magnesium, the experience is not too much different than for a person coming out of a desert desperate for water. It is that basic to life, that important, that necessary.

That same power found in magnesium that will save your life in the emergency room during cardiac arrest, that will diminish damage of a stroke if administered in a timely fashion, is the same power that can save one's life if one has cancer. All a patient has to do is pour it into their baths or spray it right onto their bodies. What could be simpler?

Magnesium chloride, when applied directly to the skin, is transdermally absorbed and has an
almost immediate effect on chronic and acute pain.

Special Note on Calcium and Cancer:

Experts say excessive calcium intake may be unwise in light of recent studies showing that high amounts of the mineral may increase risk of prostate cancer. "There is reasonable evidence to suggest that calcium may play an important role in the development of prostate cancer," says Dr. Carmen Rodriguez, senior epidemiologist in the epidemiology and surveillance research department of the American Cancer Society (ACS). Rodriguez says that a 1998 Harvard School of Public Health study of 47,781 men found those consuming between 1,500 and 1,999 mg of calcium per day had about double the risk of being diagnosed with metastatic (cancer that has spread to other parts of the body) prostate cancer as those getting 500 mg per day or less. And those taking in 2,000 mg or more had over four times the risk of developing metastatic prostate cancer as those taking in less than 500 mg.

Calcium and magnesium are opposites in their effects on our body structure. As a general rule, the more rigid and inflexible our body structure is, the less calcium and the more magnesium we need.

Later in 1998, Harvard researchers published a study of dairy product intake among 526 men diagnosed with prostate cancer and 536 similar men not diagnosed with the disease. That study found a 50% increase in prostate cancer risk and a near doubling of risk of metastatic prostate cancer among men consuming high amounts of dairy products, likely due, say the researchers, to the high total amount of calcium in such a diet. The most recent Harvard study on the topic, published in October 2001, looked at dairy product intake among 20,885 men and found men consuming the most dairy products had about 32% higher risk of developing prostate cancer than those consuming the least.

The adverse effects of excessive calcium intake may include high blood calcium levels, kidney stone formation and kidney complications. Elevated calcium levels are also associated with arthritic/joint and vascular degeneration, calcification of soft tissue, hypertension and stroke, and increase in VLDL triglycerides, gastrointestinal disturbances, mood and depressive disorders, chronic fatigue, and general mineral imbalances including magnesium, zinc, iron and phosphorus. High calcium levels interfere with Vitamin D and subsequently inhibit the vitamin's cancer protective effect unless extra amounts of Vitamin D are supplemented.

Magnesium is the mineral of rejuvenation and prevents the calcification of our organs and tissues that is characteristic of the old-age related degeneration of our body.

Recommendations of magnesium to calcium ratios range from 1:2 to 1:1. For those interested in preventing cancer, one should look closely at the 1:1 camp and during the first six months of treatment, one should be looking at ten parts magnesium to one part calcium. In reality, one need not even count the ratio during the first months for the only real danger of extremely high magnesium levels comes with patients suffering from kidney failure. If one is at all concerned about their calcium intake, one should eat foods high in both calcium and magnesium like toasted sesame seeds.

Up to 30% of the energy of cells is used to pump calcium out of the cells.

Doctors who have used intravenous magnesium treatments know the benefits of peaking magnesium levels, even if only temporarily. For the cancer patient the transdermal approach combined with oral use offers the opportunity to take magnesium levels up strongly and quickly. For emergency situations, three applications a day; for urgent situations, two treatments would be indicated though one strong treatment with an ounce of a natural magnesium chloride solution spread all over the body like a sun screen is a powerful systemic treatment.

It is medical wisdom that tells us that magnesium is actually the key to the body's proper assimilation and use of calcium, as well as other important nutrients. If we consume too much calcium, without sufficient magnesium, the excess calcium is not utilized correctly and may actually become toxic, causing painful conditions in the body. Hypocalcemia is a prominent manifestation of magnesium deficiency in humans (Rude et al., 1976). Even mild degrees of magnesium depletion significantly decreases the serum calcium concentration (Fatemi et al., 1991).

Calcium requirement for men and women is lower than previously estimated.

This is an excerpt from Dr. Mark Sircus' excellent new book "Winning the War On Cancer".

Fully referenced article available at: (http://www.magnesiumforlife.com/) .

More alternative cancer information available at: (http://www.winningcancer.com/) .

About the author

Mark A. Sircus Ac., OMD, is director of the International Medical Veritas Association (IMVA)http://www.imva.info/. Dr. Sircus was trained in acupuncture and oriental medicine at the Institute of Traditional Medicine in Sante Fe, N.M., and in the School of Traditional Medicine of New England in Boston. He served at the Central Public Hospital of Pochutla, in México, and was awarded the title of doctor of oriental medicine for his work. He was one of the first nationally certified acupuncturists in the United States. Dr. Sircus's IMVA is dedicated to unifying the various disciplines in medicine with the goal of creating a new dawn in healthcare. 

He is particularly concerned about the effect vaccinations have on vulnerable infants and is identifying the common thread of many toxic agents that are dramatically threatening present and future generations of children. His book The Terror of Pediatric Medicine is a free e-book one can read. Dr. Sircus is a most prolific and courageous writer and one can read through hundreds of pages on his various web sites. 

He has most recently released his Survival Medicine for the 21st Century compendium (2,200 page ebook) and is racing to finish his Winning the War Against Cancer book. Dr. Sircus is a pioneer in the area of natural detoxification and chelation of toxic chemicals and heavy metals. He is also a champion of the medicinal value of minerals and is fathering in a new medical approach that uses sea water and different concentrates taken from it for health and healing. Transdermal Magnesium Therapy, his first published work, offers a stunning breakthrough in medicine, an entirely new way to supplement magnesium that naturally increases DHEA levels, brings cellular magnesium levels up quickly, relieves pain, brings down blood pressure and pushes cell physiology in a positive direction. Magnesium chloride delivered transdermally brings a quick release from a broad range of conditions.
International Medical Veritas Association: http://www.imva.info/

May 8

Canada's C-51 Law May Outlaw 60% of Natural Health Products;

(NaturalNews) A new law being pushed in Canada by Big Pharma seeks to outlaw up to 60 percent of natural health products currently sold in Canada, even while criminalizing parents who give herbs or supplements to their children. The law, known as C-51, was introduced by the Canadian Minister of Health on April 8th, 2008, and it proposes sweeping changes to Canada's Food and Drugs Act that could have devastating consequences on the health products industry.

Among the changes proposed by the bill are radical alterations to key terminology, including replacing the word "drug" with "therapeutic product" throughout the Act, thereby giving the Canadian government broad-reaching powers to regulate the sale of all herbs, vitamins, supplements and other items. With this single language change, anything that is "therapeutic" automatically falls under the Food and Drug Act. This would include bottled water, blueberries, dandelion greens and essentially all plant-derived substances.

The Act also changes the definition of the word "sell" to include anyone who gives such therapeutic products to someone else. So a mother giving an herb to her child, under the proposed new language, could be arrested for engaging in the sale of unregulated, unapproved "therapeutic substances." Learn about more of these freedom-squashing changes to the law at the Stop51.com website: http://www.stopc51.com

New enforcement powers allow Canadian government to seize your home or business

At the same time that C-51 is outlawing herbs, supplements and vitamins, it would grant alarming new "enforcement" powers to the thugs enforcement agents who claim to be "protecting" the public from dangerous unapproved "therapeutic agents" like, say, dandelion greens. As explained on the www.Educate-Yourself.orgwebsite ((http://educate-yourself.org/cn/canadian...), the C-51 law would allow the Canadian government's thugsenforcement agents to:

• Raid your home or business without a warrant
• Seize your bank accounts
• Levy fines up to $5 million and a jail terms up to 2 years for merely selling an herb
• Confiscate your property, then charge you storage fees for the expense involved in storing all the products they stole from you

C-51 would even criminalize the simple drying of herbs in your kitchen to be used in an herbal product, by the way. That would now be categorized as a "controlled activity," and anyone caught engaging in such "controlled activities" would be arrested, fined and potentially jailed. Other "controlled activities" include labeling bottles, harvesting plants on a farm, collecting herbs from your back yard, or even testing herbal products on yourself! (Yes, virtually every activity involving herbs or supplements would be criminalized...)

There's more, too. C-51 is the Canadian government's "final solution" for the health products industry. It's a desperate effort to destroy this industry that's threatening the profits and viability of conventional medicine. Natural medicine works so well -- and is becoming so widely used -- that both the Canadian and American governments have decided to "nuke" the industries by passing new laws that effectively criminalize anyone selling such products. They simply cannot tolerate allowing consumers to have continued access to natural products. To do so will ultimately spell the destruction of Big Pharma and the outdated, corrupt and criminally-operated pharmaceutical industry that these criminally-operated governments are trying to protect.

Join the rally to protest C-51

On May 9th, 2008, Canadian citizens will be gathering at the Calgary Federal Court to protest C-51 and help protect their access to natural health products. Call 1-888-878-3467 to learn more, or visit the action page ofHealth Canada Exposed at: http://www.stopc51.com/c51/what_you_can_do.asp

NaturalNews is looking to hire someone with a good video camera to film the event. We'll gladly pay you to video tape this and send us the resulting file, which we will edit and then post for NaturalNews readers. If you have a video camera (with good audio, hopefully) and can attend the May 9th rally, please contact us at (U.S.) 520-232-9300 for details. If you do film there, be sure to use the camera buddy system, where you have somebody in the distance filming YOU with the camera, so that if Canadian law enforcement thugs decide to assault you and steal your video camera in order to censor the event, then somebody else in the distance has THAT on video! You got that? So there are two cameras working, camera A is filming the rally, and it's very close to the action. Camera B is set back farther from the scene, and it's filming the person holding camera A. This is standard operating practice for filming such events, and it makes it very difficult for government thugs to shut down the video. Often, the person filming with camera B is in a car somewhere, or filming covertly so that they don't attract attention. Zoom lenses help a lot.

In any case, if you manage to get some video of this event, then we'd be thrilled to share it with NaturalNews readers. And like I said, we'll pay for footage, so call us for details. Together, we can help spread the word about this important rally for health freedom in Canada.

Learn more: http://www.stopC51.com

May 8

Aspirin Sold as a Wonder Drug for All That Ails, But Falls F

(NaturalNews) You've likely seen the articles currently ballyhooing the idea that aspirin, along with other NSAIDs, cuts the risk of breast cancer. It sounds so good. The UK's Independent reported that the breast cancer risk is cut by 20%. The New York Times claimed a 26% lower risk. But, is it true? The answer is probably no, and there certainly is nothing in the study that gives any legitimate credence to the idea.

Where Did the Claim Come From?

The authors of the study, A. Agrawal and I.S. Fentiman of Guy's Hospital in the UK, did not do new research. They searched the MEDLINE database for research that focused on finding a connection between NSAIDs and breast cancer prevention or treatment. They also looked for studies that tried to find the mechanism of a presumed connection between NSAIDs and breast cancer. These were the only criteria used to select articles - criteria that clearly show intent to find a certain result: that NSAIDs lower the risk of breast cancer. This is hardly a balanced approach to research, as the desired result was predetermined.

The studies selected were far from consistent. They found one study, published in 2001, that claims an 18% decrease in the risk of breast cancer, associated primarily with aspirin, not other NSAIDs. Another study from 2003 reported similar results. Another large study produced the same year showed no risk reduction. The authors frankly acknowledged that this was a particularly good and large study. Studies published later show a range of results. Some indicated an increase in breast cancer with high doses of NSAIDs.

The authors of this metastudy make claims for reduced risk of breast cancer, but acknowledge that they do not know what an appropriate NSAID dose would be. The authors start their conclusion with the sentence, "Among studies evaluating the relationship between NSAIDs and breast cancer risk, some found no association whereas others have reported inverse associations."

They go on to point out that a trial of Celecoxib, with the catchy name of REACT (Randomized European Celecoxib Trial) is currently underway. This should strike a note of fear, as Celecoxib has been implicated in a huge range of life-threatening disorders, including liver damage, kidney damage, irregular heart rhythm, gastrointestinal perforation and hemorrhage, edema, osteoarthritis, thrombocytosis, hepatitis, coronary artery disease, bacterial infection, fungal infection, diabetes, and a host of others. Part of the trial will also include tamoxifen, another discredited drug, noted for causing blood clots, endometrial cancer, and stroke. The authors' anticipation of this trial's results is clearly indicated in the sentence, "End-points are disease free survival together with overall survival and toxicity."

To their credit, Agrawal and Fentiman do acknowledge that their article does not take into account the risks associated with NSAIDs and that such a study would need to be done before recommending their use for prevention of breast cancer. Nonetheless, they make the claim that NSAIDs, especially aspirin, appears to reduce the risk of breast cancer by 20%, though they provide absolutely no data to support that claim.

A close inspection of the study makes you wonder how the news media gets its information about studies like this.

What Problems Exist in Taking Aspirin Routinely?

Now, let's take a look at the risks involved in taking aspirin routinely, which is what all these news media articles indicate women should be doing.

Stroke

One of the standard claims about aspirin is that it limits the risk of stroke. The logic is that aspirin is a blood thinner, therefore strokes are less likely when you take it because they're caused by blood clots. There's an obvious flaw in this thinking. Some strokes are caused by the opposite of blood clots; they're caused by bleeding in the brain. It should have been obvious that routinely taking aspirin, or any blood thinner, carries the risk of increasing the incidence of bleeding strokes.

A study spanning 25 years published in the medical journal, Lancet Neurology, showed a seven-fold increase in the incidence of bleeding stroke in people over age 75 who take aspirin.

Reye's Syndrome

Children under age 12 who take aspirin may develop life-threatening Reye's Syndrome. It causes multiple organ disorders and failure. The brain may swell. Cardiac arrest may occur. There is no cure for it. Children often die or are left with permanent disabilities. Though rare, the effects of Reye's Syndrome are so severe that giving aspirin to a child should simply never be done.

Pancreatic Cancer

A study of nearly 90,000 women at Brigham and Women's Hospital, spanning 18 years, shows a 58% increased risk of pancreatic cancer when the participants took more than two aspirin a week. When they took more than 14, the risk became 86% higher.

Gastrointestinal Harm

Bleeding and ulcers of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are no small matter. 20,000 Americans die each year from such damage caused by aspirin, and another 100,000 go to the hospital for these injuries.

NSAID-SSRI Cocktail

Researchers in East Anglia, UK, did a metastudy of four trials, which followed 153,000 patients who took a combination of NSAIDs and SSRIs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors - drugs routinely prescribed for depression and other emotional issues. Those who took only SSRIs had a 2.4 times greater risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Those who took only NSAIDs had a 3.2 times greater risk of such hemorrhages. When an SSRI was taken with an NSAID, the risk rose to 6.3 times that of people who took neither.

Buffered Aspirin

To reduce the risk of GI problems from aspirin, people often take buffered forms. These pills are coated with a chemical that neutralizes stomach acid, allowing people who were previously unable to take aspirin to avoid suffering the symptoms of gastric pain. The result, though, has been an increase in GI bleeding. The Boston University School of Medicine did a study of 550 patients with GI bleeding. They found that those who took more than 325 mg. of buffered aspirin daily were seven times more likely to suffer from GI problems.

Wonder Drugs

Clearly, aspirin - the drug that's routinely considered a wonder drug, the one that started the pharmaceutical corporation debacle, the one that has been considered so safe that it's been suggested that taking it every day is a boon to health, the one that people are so inured to that they don't even bother informing their doctors when they take it - this wonder drug carries many serious risks. Aspirin kills children with Reye's Syndrome. It kills adults with GI bleeding. It kills the elderly with hemorrhagic strokes. It kills women with pancreatic cancer. The problems are clearly documented.

When the news media is all abuzz over the latest wonders of aspirin or its other cohorts in crime, NSAIDs, or any other drug, it would be wise to take it with a grain of salt. Consider whether the wonderful news being portrayed is true, or actually a phantom - a fantasy born out of pharmaceutical corporate greed. Is it a chance thing that aspirin is now being promoted for a questionable benefit in regard to breast cancer, but without balancing information to show how many lives are destroyed by it?

The same story about the wonders of aspirin in preventing breast cancer, written in different words in each newspaper, appeared in papers all over the English-speaking world on the same day. How, exactly, did that happen? What are the chances that each newspaper had a reporter on the beat of health news on the same day to report on a highly questionable study, but invariably without any questions as to its accuracy?

These are rhetorical questions. The details of how it happened that virtually every major news outlet in the English-speaking world produced an equivalent are not the real issue here. The point is that it's obviously not a chance thing. Is it possible that mass production of uncritical propaganda regarding the pharmaceutical industry's latest attempts to cram its products down your throat are obviously orchestrated?

The next time you see claims for the wonders of a drug, even one as seemingly innocuous as aspirin, take a step back and ask yourself if the drug might hold risks that are being ignored.

Avoiding Aspirin and other NSAIDs

Herbal Remedy

Interestingly, aspirin was developed by isolating the so-called active ingredient in willow bark, salicylic acid. However, as herbalists and other alternative healthcare practitioners are well aware, it is rarely the isolated ingredient that provides the greatest or safest effect. The natural product is nearly always safer and more effective. Willow bark is no exception to this rule.

For chronic pain relief, especially if it's of an inflammatory nature, willow bark, readily available from herbalists in tincture and whole form, and health food stores in pill form, can be an excellent way to ease pain. Its effects are slower than aspirin's, but far longer lasting. It does not cause the dangerous gastrointestinal bleeding that aspirin does, and side effects are limited. It's noted as effective for pain from osteoarthritis, including lower back pain, osteoporosis, headache, and toothache.

On a side note, people who take narcotics for pain often suffer from severe dry mouth, which leads to loss of teeth over time. Radiation treatments are also noted to cause dry mouth. Willow bark in a lozenge form has been shown to alleviate it.

Homeopathic Remedies

For the pain of accidents, especially bumps, bruises, and shocks to the head, the homeopathic medication, Arnica, can do wonders. Not only does it alleviate pain very rapidly, it also speeds healing. Homeopaths are particularly fond of Arnica, as people often become converts to homeopathy after the "Arnica experience".

For sprains, try Rhus toxicodendron.

For nerve pain from an injury, such as a cut on a fingertip (not necessarily long term nerve pain), Hypericum can do wonders.

Summary

As you can see, there are options for treatment of pain without putting more money into the pockets of pharmaceutical corporations or risking harm to your intestinal tract. With good health habits - a good diet full of fresh organic fruits and vegetables, regular exercise, fresh air and sunshine, adequate hydration, avoidance of toxins, and an active mind - you are unlikely to need any of the pharmaceutical medications to control or prevent chronic disease.

With the clear mind that results from avoiding aspirin and taking good care of yourself, you'll find it easier to see through the propaganda campaigns of the pharmaceutical companies. Aside from being more clear-headed, you'll improve your chances to lead a long and feel-good life, full of energy and zest.

About the author

Heidi Stevenson
Fellow, British Institute of Homeopathy
Gaia Therapy (http://www.gaia-therapy.com)
The author is a homeopath who became concerned with medically-induced harm as a result of her own experiences and those of family members. She says that allopathic medicine is the arena that best describes the motto, "Buyer beware."
Iatrogenic disease is illness, disability, and death caused by medical practice. It is common, resulting in huge costs to society and individuals. It's possible - even common - to suffer an iatrogenic illness without realizing its source. Heidi Stevenson provides information about medically-induced disease and disability so members of the public can protect themselves.