Posts Tagged: treatment

Vitamin C-An Amazing Nutrient

Vitamin C is a great supplement to take. Fortunately for us, (or unfortunately for Big Pharma) it helps people with a variety of ailments.
And we’re very happy that it’s relatively cheap, especially when you compare it to pharmaceutical drugs.
But the best part is that there are few side effects to vitamin C. The worst thing that you’ll probably experience is some flatulence and diarrhea if you reach your bowel tolerance level from oral consumption.
I’ve spoken about vitamin C before, but this article also has a lot of references and links to more information about vitamin C. But you should also know that vitamin C is also great for cancer.
This article is written by a PhD professor, for all you science aficionados.
Get More Alternative Cancer Treatment information right here…

Vitamin C papers hot off the press
Vitamin C is needed by the body to maintain health. It is a “macro-vitamin,” because although not required in large quantities to support energy metabolism, it is required in the diet in amounts much larger than most of the other known “micro-nutrient” vitamins.[1] Typical best daily doses for adults range from 500 to 10,000 mg (milligrams) or more, depending on the stress level and disease condition.[1] It is the most important water-soluble antioxidant in the body, essential for providing antioxidant protection against the onslaught of oxygen, light, and toxins. It is also required to create and maintain collagen, the most common protein in the body, found in the skin, arteries and veins, eyes and brain, and in all organs. [2] However, most people don’t get enough vitamin C even when their diet includes excellent quantities of fresh vegetables and fruits.
Medical research over the last 75 years has shown that supplements of vitamin C can prevent or reverse many progressive diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and chronic eye disease.[1-5] The effect of vitamin C on disease conditions and maintaining health continues to be studied. Each of the research studies cited below increments our knowledge of essential nutrients. The latest research from the past several months provides important new evidence about the vital health benefits of vitamin C:
Vitamin C protects against COPD
Many of us are familiar with TV ads promoting drugs to treat the symptoms of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Smoking is a big risk factor because oxidative toxins in smoke can damage the lungs. But recent research shows that vitamin C can reduce the risk of COPD. In a recent study, heavy smokers who had the highest intake of vitamin C in their diet (more than 140 mg/day) had a 77% reduction in risk for COPD compared to those with low intake.[6] Other nutrients were helpful too, such as retinol (a vitamin A precursor found in egg yolks, butter, and liver) and carotene (another vitamin A precursor found in carrots and other orange and dark green vegetables). The authors suggest that these essential antioxidants improve the immune response and are responsible for antioxidant defenses in the lungs that aid recovery from inhaling toxins in smoke. The mechanism is thought to be in part vitamin C’s ability to restore vascular endothelial growth factor levels and proliferation of alveolar cells in the lungs.[6]
Vitamin C protects against early Alzheimer’s Disease
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), a progressive deterioration of the brain and its cognitive function, is under intensive study because it affects many older people and the cause is currently unknown. Although some of the risk factors are known, such as age, smoking, and genetic predisposition, there is no effective drug therapy to cure or prevent progression of AD.[7] However, in a recent study, it was found that vitamin C, carotenoids, and vitamin B6 in the diet, along with unsaturated fatty acids and to a lesser extent essential minerals, were protective against AD.[8] Vitamin C is known to protect against oxidation from toxins in smoke which are hypothesized to be a potential causative factor in AD.
Vitamin C helps to reduce risk of obesity
Stem cells are a critical component of the body’s recovery from injury and disease. For example, the inflammation that surrounds a physical injury such as a cut on the skin or damage to a joint or bone attracts stem cells and signals them to create new cells of an appropriate type to repair the injury. A recent paper on stem cell differentiation reported that vitamin C (a) helps to transform adult differentiated cells back into stem cells, (b) inhibits stem cells from differentiating into adipocytes (fat cells), and (c) drives differentiation of stem cells into myogenesis (muscle) and osteogenesis (bone).[9] The effect of vitamin C is thought to reprogram the methylation sites in DNA in the stem cells to provide a long-lasting epigenetic signal. The study concludes that vitamin C when taken in sufficient doses (up to 3,000 mg) is safe and may help to attenuate the creation of fat cells and to maintain muscle mass in older people.[9]
Vitamin C helps to prevent stress, depression, and anxiety
Most animals can make their own ascorbate from glucose, but guinea pigs, some birds, and higher primates cannot. They must get ascorbate (vitamin C) from their diet. Mice normally don’t need ascorbate in their diet because their body can make as much as needed to recover from stress and disease; for them it is not a vitamin. A recent study tested the effect of vitamin C in transgenic mice with a mutation that made them unable to make their own vitamin C, similar to humans.[10] The study showed that a lack of vitamin C caused a loss of appetite in males and an anxiety-like state of anorexia in the response to stress in females. The authors suggest that vitamin C is beneficial in maintenance of mental health.[10]
Vitamin C helps to prevent type 2 diabetes in those consuming nitrite in meat
Nitrite (NO2-) is known to be converted by the acid of the stomach into nitrosamine compounds which can cause insulin resistance and cancer. The creation of nitrosamine is also promoted by cooking at high temperatures such as in frying. A recent randomized study reported that those with higher intakes of animal-based nitrite had a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, but only in those subjects who had low vitamin C intake.[11] A higher vitamin C intake was associated with decreased risk of type 2 diabetes, even in those with high intake of nitrite. Plant sources of nitrite did not cause an increase in type 2 diabetes risk, nor did animal or plant sources of nitrate (NO3-). The study suggests that nitrites in processed meat are a risk factor for type 2 diabetes.[11]
Macular degeneration is associated with lower intakes of antioxidants
Progressive eye disease such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common cause of blindness. Over many years, the eye is damaged by oxidation from bright light and exposure to toxic substances such as components of cigarette smoke in the blood and other toxic chemicals in the environment. A recent study found that patients with late-stage AMD had lower intakes of vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene, folate, and vegetables, and higher intake of zinc than those in a healthy control group.[12] Although the study was observational (i.e. it could not establish causation) and the conclusions tentative, it contradicts the earlier AREDS study [13] that showed a benefit of zinc along with vitamins C and E and beta-carotene. Moral of the story: if you smoke, stop, eat your vegetables, and supplement with vitamins C and E.[4]
Vitamin C helps to prevent heart attacks
Inflammation predicting heart disease is often determined by the level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) in a blood test. Although vitamin C is known to strengthen arteries and make them more elastic, helping to prevent high blood pressure and stroke,[14-16] it has not been shown to increase survival in patients with active heart disease and failure. A recent study showed that low vitamin C intake is associated with a high level of hsCRP and inflammation, and shorter survival in patients with heart failure. But even with a high level of hsCRP, an adequate level of vitamin C is associated with longer survival.[17] The study suggests that adequate vitamin C could protect the heart from inflammation and thus help to prevent heart disease.
Vitamin C safety
Vitamin C is safe for most people to take in large doses.[1-3] Its main side effect is that in very high oral doses, it is not further absorbed by the gut and attracts water which tends to cause a laxative effect, gas, and diarrhea. Normally one finds the highest tolerated dose by gradually increasing the dose until the laxative effect occurs, then reducing the dose by 10-30%. This is known as the “bowel tolerance” dose.[1-3]. Although there has been much attention to possible harmful effects such as kidney stones, vitamin C does not tend to form kidney stones in most people with healthy kidneys. Along with adequate hydration, it helps to prevent kidney stones.[18] However in very rare cases of kidney dysfunction, problems have been reported with high doses of vitamin C, and for some people who have a rare mutation in the gene for the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD), high doses of vitamin C can cause hemolysis (rupture of red blood cells).[1-3] For most people, however, vitamin C does not cause serious side effects when taken up to the bowel tolerance dose. Below this dose, typically 3,000 – 10,000 mg/day for healthy people and 10,000 – 50,000 mg/day when ill with a cold, flu, or when exposed to other toxins or stresses, the laxative effect is not present and vitamin C helps the body to quickly recover from stress.
Adequate vitamin C is essential
These recent research articles on vitamin C reiterate what we have known or suspected for decades. An adequate level of vitamin C is essential for the body, and its absence contributes to a wide variety of conditions and diseases. Although many authors have suggested that it is best to get adequate vitamin C from fruits and vegetables in the diet, we know that supplements of vitamin C can raise the level in the body high enough to prevent heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. We also know that manufactured vitamin C found in high-quality supplements is the same vitamin C nutrient we get from eating fruits and vegetables.[1-3] Because the level of vitamin C goes down when the body is stressed, supplements can supply the extra amount needed to allow the body to recover [19-21]. For many people with ordinary everyday stress, this is 1,500 – 3,000 mg/day, or 500 to 1,000 mg per meal, but it rises when acutely sick or critically ill to 20,000 – 100,000 mg/day, taken in divided oral doses.[1-5]
(Dr. Robert G. Smith is Associate Research Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. He is the author of The Vitamin Cure for Eye Disease and also The Vitamin Cure for Arthritis.)
1. Hickey S, Saul AW. Vitamin C: The Real Story, the Remarkable and Controversial Healing Factor. Basic Health Pubs, 2008. ISBN-13: 9781591202233.
2. Levy TE. Primal Panacea. Medfox Pubs, 2011. ISBN-13: 978-0983772804.
3. Saul AW (Ed) Orthomolecular Treatment of Chronic Disease: 65 Experts on Therapeutic and Preventive Nutrition. Basic Health Pubs, 2014. ISBN-13: 978-1591203704.
4. Smith RG. The Vitamin Cure for Eye Disease: How to Prevent and Treat Eye Disease Using Nutrition and Vitamin Supplementation. Basic Health Pubs, 2012. ISBN-13: 978-1591202929.
5. Smith RG, Penberthy T. The Vitamin Cure for Arthritis. Basic Health Pubs, 2015. ISBN-13: 978-1591203124.
6. Park HJ, Byun MK, Kim HJ, Kim JY, Kim YI, Yoo KH, Chun EM, Jung JY, Lee SH, Ahn CM. Dietary vitamin C intake protects against COPD: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2012. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016 Oct 31;11:2721-2728.
7. Graham WV, Bonito-Oliva A, Sakmar TP. Update on Alzheimer’s Disease Therapy and Prevention Strategies. Annu Rev Med. 2017 Jan 14;68:413-430. doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-042915-103753.
8. Lu Y, An Y, Guo J, Zhang X, Wang H, Rong H, Xiao R. Dietary Intake of Nutrients and Lifestyle Affect the Risk of Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Chinese Elderly Population: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front Behav Neurosci. 2016, 10:229. DOI:10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00229.
9. Rahman F, Bordignon B, Culerrier R, Peiretti F, Spicuglia S, Djabali M, Landrier JF, Fontes M. Ascorbic acid drives the differentiation of mesoderm-derived embryonic stem cells. Involvement of p38 MAPK/CREB and SVCT2 transporter. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2016 Dec 13. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201600506. [Epub ahead of print]
10. Koizumi M, Kondo Y, Isaka A, Ishigami A, Suzuki E. Vitamin C impacts anxiety-like behavior and stress-induced anorexia relative to social environment in SMP30/GNL knockout mice. Nutr Res. 2016 Dec;36(12):1379-1391. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2016.11.006.
11. Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Ghasemi A, Carlström M, Azizi F, Hadaegh F. Vitamin C intake modify the impact of dietary nitrite on the incidence of type 2 diabetes: A 6-year follow-up in Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study. Nitric Oxide. 2017 Jan 30;62:24-31. doi: 10.1016/j.niox.2016.11.005.
12. Gopinath B, Liew G, Russell J, Cosatto V, Burlutsky G, Mitchell P. Intake of key micronutrients and food groups in patients with late-stage age-related macular degeneration compared with age-sex-matched controls. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Nov 29. pii: bjophthalmol-2016-309490. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309490.
13. Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1417-36.
14. Shargorodsky M, Debby O, Matas Z, et al. Effect of Long-Term Treatment with Antioxidants (Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Coenzyme Q10 and Selenium) on Arterial Compliance, Humoral Factors and Inflammatory Markers in Patients with Multiple Cardiovascular Risk Factors. Nutr Metab (Lond) (Jul 6, 2010) 7:55. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-7-55.
15. Kurl S, Tuomainen TP, Laukkanen JA, et al. Plasma Vitamin C Modifies the Association between Hypertension and Risk of Stroke. Stroke 33(6) (Jun 2002):1568-1573.
16. Levy, TE. Stop America’s #1 Killer: Reversible Vitamin Deficiency Found to be Origin of All Coronary Heart Disease. Henderson, NV: LivOn Books, 2006.
17. Song EK, Kang SM. Vitamin C Deficiency, High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein, and Cardiac Event-Free Survival in Patients With Heart Failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2016 Dec 15. [Epub ahead of print]
18. What really causes kidney stones (and why vitamin C does not). OMNS, Feb 11, 2013.
19. Schectman G, Byrd JC, Gruchow HW. The Influence of Smoking on Vitamin Status in Adults. Am J Public Health 79(2) (Feb 1989):158-162.
20. Berger MM. Vitamin C Requirements in Parenteral Nutrition. Gastroenterology 137(5 Suppl) (Nov 2009):S70-578. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.08.012.
21. Nathens AB, et al. Randomized, Prospective Trial of Antioxidant Supplementation in Critically Ill Surgical Patients. Ann Surg 236(6) (Dec 2002):814-822.
For more info, go to:

Read on »

FDA quietly bans powerful life-saving intravenous Vitamin C

We hope this isn’t true, but it would appear that they’re attacking another cheap, non-toxic, effective treatment for cancer.
Even if you would argue that IV vitamin C isn’t a cure, you can’t deny that it’s relatively innocuous compared to chemotherapy, radiation or even immunotherapy drugs. Each one of those treatments have a laundry list of side effects, many of them fatal.
People that clamor for the science on this don’t understand that regardless of the scientific basis demonstrating that it is effective, it is not going to be marketed by Big Pharma. And this is because no company is going to spend millions of dollars promoting something that they can’t make any money off of! It just doesn’t work like that. This is not hard to understand, but many alleged science-loving people fail to comprehend this fact. I call it ‘strategic ignorance.’
The science that we’ve seen shows that chemotherapy and radiation are not cures for cancer. So even if IV vitamin C isn’t a cure, it definitely will not cripple, maim or injure cancer patients. And even better, it won’t bankrupt them either. Or is this contrary to Big Pharma profit principles? We need to stop being dupes for Big Pharma’s profit motive. It’s simply not in Big Pharma’s plan to allow cheap cures for diseases because they would destroy the market & sales that they garner from their existing drugs.
Who do you know that would willingly destroy their source of income? Especially if we’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars of profits. It’s time to stop being naive and start to wake up to the way that human behavior and motivation really works. Do we really need a double-blind, randomized study to prove this?
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

It would be naive to think that the FDA endeavors to protect the public’s health as its primary focus. Indeed, that would be a conflict of interest, as it serves its master, the pharmaceutical industry. Has the Food and Drug Administration engineered a shortage of intravenous vitamin C as part of an overall attack on natural and non-toxic approaches to healing that compete with prescription drugs? An analysis by Natural Blaze would suggest that the answer is yes.

Natural Blaze claims that a critical shortage of IV bags in general followed an FDA ban on the mass production of intravenous vitamin C. The FDA limited the availability of IV-C and the pharmaceutical industry halted production of injectable vitamins and minerals, after a 60 minute story about the miraculous recovery of a swine flu patient on life support. Because of the shortage of IV-C, doctors called upon compounding pharmacies to produce it. But the FDA began to limit compounding pharmacies after injectable steroids produced by the New England Compounding Center were contaminated with a fungus that caused a deadly outbreak of meningitis. Here is an example of an entire industry being punished for the dubious practices of one compounding pharmacy.
Try and follow this convoluted story: Doctors began to source NECC for its more expensive product because cheaper generic versions were in short supply. But it was the FDA’s increased inspection of drug factories that disrupted the supply chain in the first place. So the meningitis deaths were in part caused by the onerous actions of the FDA.
Natural Blaze reports, “… without anyone noticing, and by many indirect means of banning production of the bags or shutting down those doing the production of the bags and the injectable vitamins and minerals, access to IV solutions for innumerable treatments for diseases, have gone into critical shortage.”
Vitamin C and the Big C
Could the shortage of IV-C be part of an effort to limit alternative cancer therapies? states, “… vitamin C is a potent antioxidant that has the power to boost immune function, increase resistance to infection, and protect against a wide range of diseases. But there’s an entirely different and largely unknown role of vitamin C, and that is its ability—when administered in very high doses by intravenous (IV) infusions—to kill cancer cells. … Best of all—and unlike virtually all conventional chemotherapy drugs that destroy cancer cells—it is selectively toxic. No matter how high the concentration, vitamin C does not harm healthy cells.”
Dr. Whitaker continues:
“The only way to get blood levels of vitamin C to the concentrations required to kill cancer cells is to administer it intravenously. … For example, 10 g of IV vitamin C raises blood levels 25 times higher than the same dose taken orally, and this increases up to 70-fold as doses get larger.”
Choose health, choose life
When the human body is challenged by pathogens or needs to heal from injuries or surgery, its requirement for vitamin C increases considerably. If hospitals routinely administered intravenous ascorbic acid, a proven and inexpensive treatment, patient outcomes would improve. When one weighs the risk of infection from deadly superbugs in hospitals today, IV vitamin C as a preventative safeguard makes all the more sense.
To learn how to secure IV-C in advance of a hospital stay for yourself or a family member, check out this very useful advice at You will learn how to deal with objections from physicians and hospital administrators regarding this “alt-health” remedy. It will require some moxie, but doing so may save a life.
Supporters of Obamacare believe that access to affordable healthcare is the most important consideration. But of even greater concern should be the ability to choose your own treatment modality, such as IV-C. In other words, medical freedom of choice trumps universal access. Many of us involved in the health freedom movement are outraged by the disregard for our natural rights by unelected federal bureaucracies such as the FDA. We hope for a day when a critical mass of aware citizens will hold their elected officials accountable to overturn toxic policies that favor Big Pharma’s obscene profits over our health and well-being. And that day is long overdue.
For more info, go to:

Read on »

How Reliable Are Cancer Studies?

We all know that nothing is perfect, including science. But it would be very nice if lots of staunch people who worship science as a religion would get off of their proverbial ‘high horses’ and try to be more realistic.
This is a very important question because this is the crux of science. Science is supposed to be based on proof, evidence and a process to remove bias. Many see ‘science’ as the paragon, the absolute apex of information, and of society. This is understandable because we do need to be sure of the things we think and believe are true. It has allowed civilization to progress as far as it has.
But there is a problem when what we call science is different from what science is supposed to be, different from what people assume that it is. And therein lies the conundrum. Is a study really science and constitutes ‘proof’ if the conclusions and the actual study results can’t be replicated? Is ‘science’ really science if it has been corrupted for other objectives? Is ‘science’ really science if the scientists are controlled by profit-seeking corporations, politicians who have been bribed or otherwise incentivized to only search for cancer cures down authorized areas of research, or by regulators and government agencies who are in bed with Big Pharma?
It’s just irritating to hear people always talk about science as if it were the only thing that we can believe in. Evidently, most cancer studies, as demonstrated in this brief study, are not reproducible. This means that this so-called science isn’t as scientific or definite as many think it is. And that’s before we even start talking about hidden agendas for various things like protecting corporate Big Pharma profits, prestige, following the mainstream so you don’t get steamrolled by the Medical Establishment, etc.
Maybe this is a sign that there needs to be an overhaul of science, or a revolution in the way that scientific studies are performed. There has to be a way to improve the reproducibility of scientific experiments. There have to be ways to find and use cheaper, more effective, safer treatments for cancer than what Big Pharma, the Medical Establishment and the government are offering and/or allowing to be marketed to patients and consumers. There’s a difference between finding a cure for cancer no matter where or how it is, and finding a treatment for cancer upon which Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment can make billions of dollars of profit! These objectives are as different as night and day.
Often, many people are extremely biased against ‘unproven’ cancer treatment approaches. They fiercely attack people that have different views on cancer treatment. They ridicule and berate anyone who goes outside of traditional cancer treatments. This article exposes what many alternative cancer treatment practitioners and supporters have implicitly known and felt, but never had the proof to document–until now.
The major takeaway from this study is that people who attack alternative cancer treatments should probably try to be more open minded. It would be different if there were some conventional cancer treatments out there that were over 50-75% effective, but they aren’t. So to summarily dismiss ALL ‘alternative’ cancer treatments because they aren’t mainstream is highly biased because each approach is different and stands on its own merits. But ‘alternative cancer practitioners’ and their supporters usually have more logic in their approaches to cancer treatment than what Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment are offering. One common sense strategy is to refrain from the use of medicines and treatments that severely injure patients (like chemotherapy, radiation and often even immunology)!
Get More Alternative Cancer Treatment information right here…

(emphasis is mine)
In recent years, scientists have been dealing with concerns about a reproducibility crisis—the possibility that many published findings may not actually be true. Psychologists have grappled intensively with this problem, trying to assess its scope and look for solutions. And two reports from pharmaceutical companies have suggested that cancer biologists have to face a similar reckoning.
In 2011, Bayer Healthcare said that its in-house scientists could only validate 25 percent of basic studies in cancer and other conditions. (Drug companies routinely do such checks so they can use the information in those studies as a starting point for developing new drugs.) A year later, Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis from Amgen said that the firm could only confirm the findings in 6 out of 53 landmark cancer papers—just 11 percent. Perhaps, they wrote, that might explain why “our ability to translate cancer research to clinical success has been remarkably low.”
But citing reasons of confidentiality, neither the Bayer nor Amgen teams released the list of papers that they checked, or their methods or results. Ironically, without that information, there was no way of checking if their claims about irreproducibility were themselves reproducible. “The reports were shocking, but also seemed like finger-pointing,” says Tim Errington, a cell biologist at the Center for Open Science (COS).
Elizabeth Iorns had the same thought, and she saw a way to do a better and more transparent job. She had founded a start-up called Science Exchange, which uses a large network of contract labs to provide research support to scientists—and in some cases, check their work. She contacted the COS, and together, they launched the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology—an initiative that used the Science Exchange labs to replicate key results from the 50 most cited papers in cancer biology, published between 2010 and 2012. (The COS recently used the same model for psychology studies to good effect.)
The results from the first five of these replication attempts were published today—and they offer no clean answers. Two of them largely (but not entirely) confirmed the conclusions of the original studies. One failed to do so. And two were inconclusive for technical reasons—the mouse strains or cancer cell lines that were used in the original studies didn’t behave in the same way the second time round. These uncertainties mean that it’s very hard to say whether each replication attempt “worked,” or whether each original study was actually reproducible.
“Everyone wants us to paint the project in black and white,” says Errington. “What percent of these papers replicate? I’ve been asked that so many times, but it’s not an easy question.” To him, the project’s goal isn’t to get a hard percentage, but to understand why two seemingly identical goes at the same experiment might produce different results, and to ultimately make it easier for one group of scientists to check another’s work.
The Reproducibility Project team pre-registered all of their work. That is, for each targeted paper, they wrote up their experimental plans in full, ran them past the original authors, and submitted them to the journal eLife for peer review. Only then did they start the experiments. Once the results were in, they were reviewed a second time, before being published.
The hardest part, by far, was figuring out exactly what the original labs actually did. Scientific papers come with methods sections that theoretically ought to provide recipes for doing the same experiments. But often, those recipes are incomplete, missing out important steps, details, or ingredients. In some cases, the recipes aren’t described at all; researchers simply cite an earlier study that used a similar technique. “I’ve done it myself: you reference a previous paper and that one references a paper and that one references a paper, and now you’ve gone years and the methodology doesn’t exist,” admit Errington. “Most people looking at these papers wouldn’t even think of going through these steps. They’d just guess. If you asked 20 different labs to replicate a paper, you’d end up with 10 different methodologies that aren’t really comparable.”
So, in every case, he had to ask the scientists behind the original experiments for the details of their work. Oftentimes, the person who actually did the experiments had left the lab, so an existing team member had to rummage through old notebooks or data files. The project ended up being hugely time-consuming for everyone concerned. “We spent a boatload of time trying to get back to ground zero,” says Errington.
And for what? The results of the first five papers show just how hard it is to interpret a replication attempt in this field. For example, in 2012, Levi Garraway at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute found that melanoma skin cancers frequently carry mutations in a gene called PREX2. His team then showed that these mutations accelerate the growth of human melanoma cells that were transplanted onto mice. But replicating team couldn’t confirm the latter result; in their experiment, the PREX2 mutations made no difference.
Does that mean that Garraway’s study was wrong? Not quite. Even though the replication team got their melanoma cells and mice from the same source as Garraway’s group, in their hands, the transplanted tumours grew much faster than had been reported. The PREX2 mutations made no difference because all the cells were already zooming along in sixth gear. Small differences in the ways the cells were grown or the mice were housed could have contributed to the differences between these studies, writes Roger Davis, a cell biologist at the University of Masschussetts Medical School, reviewed the PREX2 replication paper.
In another case, Irving Weissman from Stanford Medicine showed that cancer cells carry high levels of a protein called CD47, and antibodies that target this protein can slow the growth of human tumor cells that had been transplanted into mice. In this case, the replication experiment was inconclusive because all the transplanted tumors would spontaneously regress, antibodies or no.
Some might argue that these differences arise because the project relied on contractors, who lack the experience and artisanal skills of the scientists in the original teams. Iorns disagrees. “The teams were all selected for their technical expertise in the experiments being conducted,” she says. “They routinely run these types of experiments all the time.”
Instead, she and Errington argue that the differences stem from the inherent and underappreciated variability of the cells and animals being used in these studies. In psychology, researchers who replicate a study have no choice but to recruit different volunteers, who might differ from the original sample in critical ways. But in theory, cancer biologists should be able to use the exact same lineage of cells or breed of rodents—genetically identical and sourced from the same suppliers—which should behave in the same way. “But some of these models kind of fell apart, and you can’t dismiss that,” says Errington. He hopes that these results will spur other scientists to better explore those variations, and include more quality control steps in their work.
And perhaps the most important result from the project so far, as Daniel Engber wrote in Slate, is that it has been “a hopeless slog.” “If people had deposited raw data and full protocols at the time of publication, we wouldn’t have to go back to the original authors,” says Iorns. That would make it much easier for scientists to truly check each other’s work.
The National Institutes of Health seem to agree. In recently released guidelines, meant to improve the reproducibility of research, they recommend that journals ask for more thorough methods sections and more sharing of data. And in this, the Reproducibility Project have modelled the change they want to see, documenting every step of their project on a wiki.
“We want to applaud replication efforts like this,” says Atul Butte from the University of California, San Francisco, whose study was among the two that were successfully reproduced. “It is important for the public to have trust in scientists, and belief in the veracity of our published findings.” But he suggests that the team chooses their targeted studies in a “more impactful manner”—not by citations, but by those that are most likely to lead to new treatments.
In the meantime, the team still needs to finish its first wave of replications. They initially set out to replicate 50 old papers, but the unexpectedly high costs of doing so have forced them to scale back. “In the end, we think we’ll complete 30,” says Iorns.
For more info, go to:

Read on »

The Therapeutic Value of Medical Cannabis vs the Medical Establishment

It boggles the mind to try to figure out the logic of some battles. One such battle is the fight to legalize medical cannabis.
The government and the people who profit from the status quo are very tenacious when it comes to fighting against the legalization of medical cannabis. You would think that cannabis was the deadliest drug on the planet from the way they stubbornly cling to keeping it illegal.  But this isn’t really the case. Alcohol and tobacco kill thousands every year, while there has never been one documented death from cannabis in all the thousands of years people have been smoking or eating it. Think about that…

It doesn’t make sense until you start to understand that cannabis is one of the most useful plants in the world. It would be a threat not only to Big Pharma (as medical marijuana treats lots of diseases and disorders), but also to a number of industries like Big Oil, textiles, the steel industry and others. There are lots of entrenched interests that would lose significant profits if cannabis were to be legalized. More importantly, people would be able to free themselves from dependence on Big Oil and Big Pharma. Many in government don’t want to see that happen, and they definitely don’t want to lose out on the influence that would be lost if those big industries were to shrink.
When you look at how much money entrenched financial interests would lose if cannabis were to be legalized, you will then understand why corporations and their toadies in the government and media fight cannabis legalization tooth and nail. It’s even worse when you consider how much money municipalities, counties and the federal government make off of arresting people for marijuana charges.  It literally goes into the billions of dollars. The War on Drugs really turned out to be a war on The People.
It’s a shame when political and economic agendas taint science and other areas. Marijuana simply isn’t as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe. It isn’t 100% innocuous, but it is safer than alcohol, tobacco and most pharmaceutical drugs that are legal. And the DEA’s stubborn refusal to admit the truth about cannabis is strong evidence that they are more concerned with profiteering and protecting corporate interests over protecting the freedom and rights of The People.
The even bigger threat to corporate profits is if cannabis really does treat cancer and a lot of other diseases. Imagine what would happen to scores of medicines if it were to become public knowledge that cannabis was more effective. It would deal corporate profits a big blow. It makes you wonder whether corporate profits or the well being of patients and humanity are the main priority of the DEA and government regulators.
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

In 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States issued a long-awaited decision on the medical benefits of cannabis, and instead of validating what millions of people already know to be true about this healing plant, the DEA chose to keep intact the 1970 designation of cannabis as a schedule I substance, a drug which has, as they claim, no medical benefit.
Furthermore, in an even more egregious affront to justice and common sense, in December of 2016, the DEA made an overnight decision to create a new classification of schedule I drugs for cannabis extracts in order to stop the sale and consumption of CBD oil, a non-psychoactive derivative of cannabis which is known to have many health benefits.
These decisions contradict hundreds of studies, an abundance of medically verified success stories, and countless pieces of anecdotal evidence that cannabis in fact has wide-ranging medical value.
Seen as preposterous to those who support legalization, these rulings appear to be rooted in the status quo tyranny of the drug war and prison industrial complex, two monolithic cash cows which bring immense profit to those who persecute others for recreational and medical use of a plant. Now, however, this DEA’s attitude towards cannabis should come under even more scrutiny and criticism, as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has just released a press release which supports the claims that cannabis has therapeutic benefits.
“… the lack of any aggregated knowledge of cannabis-related health effects has led to uncertainty about what, if any, are the harms or benefits from its use. We conducted an in-depth and broad review of the most recent research to establish firmly what the science says and to highlight areas that still need further examination. As laws and policies continue to change, research must also.”
In the groundbreaking report released this week entitled The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids:
The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research (2017), the NAS issued a comprehensive, researched-backed statement on the validity of medical marijuana, including pros and cons, outlining its clinical effectiveness.
“The report states that there is conclusive evidence that marijuana can be used as a medicine. The report did not find clinical evidence for all conditions marijuana treatment is often associated with, but it recognizes its efficacy for treating many medical conditions such as “chronic pain in adults…chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms.”” [Source]
Speaking on the significance of a statement such as this coming from such an authoriative scientific body as the NAS, Deputy Director of National Affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, Michael Collins said:
“This report is vindication for all the many researchers, patients and healthcare providers who have long understood the benefits of medical marijuana. To have such a thorough review of the evidence conclude that there are benefits to medical marijuana should boost the case for federal reform. It also underlines how out of touch the DEA and other marijuana reform opponents are when they claim otherwise.” [Source]
Key findings in the NAS report of particular interest to advocates of legalization include the following:

Cannabis has significant therapeutic benefit in the treatment of chronic pain, for spasms caused by multiple-sclerosis, and in the reduction of discomfort for chemotherapy and radiation treatment patients.
Smoking cannabis does not increase the risk for cancers often associated with tobacco use.The NAS report does not appear to show favoritism in its findings, duly noting and reporting evidence of both the positive and negative aspects of chronic cannabis usage, which includes the increased risk of mental health issues and psychosocial issues due to overuse. However, the report should be considered a win for those advocating for the legalization of cannabis-based therapeutic medicines and remedies, as well as a rejection of the DEA’s classification of cannabis and cannabis extracts as substances devoid of medical benefit.
Contributed by Waking Times of Times is an independently owned and operated online magazine that seizes on the transformational power of information to trigger personal revolution and influence humanity’s evolution.

For more info, go to:

Read on »

Doctors miss nearly half of ovarian cancer cases

This is unacceptable. Is this what they mean when they talk about top rate health care?
Now this is happening in Britain, but it has me wondering what’s going on in America. We already know that a test they were using for ovarian cancer in American wasn’t accurate. Looks like Britain isn’t doing much better. So why is it so hard for doctors to accurately diagnose ovarian cancer and actually tell patients they may have it?
My recomendation is for you to make sure that you pay attention to your body, and that you also become as knowledgeable as you can about health and fitness. The bottom line is that YOU are responsible for your level of health, not the doctor. You’re the one who is with your body 24 hours a day. The doctor might see you for 10 minutes at the appointment if you’re lucky.  If you adhere to the major principles of health, you will minimize your chances of contracting a disease.
It’s only been recently that doctors even admitted that your diet had a relationship to your heart health. And to this day, doctors get very minimal training on the impact of diet on health. But alternative doctors have been preaching about diet for many decades.
You can learn about health. Do your own research. Start doing things that will improve your health, and taking things that can help you reduce or eliminate cancer. They are out there.
Get More Alternative Cancer information right here…

Almost half of women with ovarian cancer were initially misdiagnosed, a charity has found.
And four in ten patients with the cancer said their symptoms were not taken seriously by dismissive GPs.
Research found that women were ‘dying needlessly’ because they were fobbed off by doctors who attributed symptoms to other issues such as digestion problems, the menopause or stress.
About 46 per cent of patients were initially referred for tests for something other than ovarian cancer, delaying their diagnosis and treatment.
Annwen Jones, from the charity Target Ovarian Cancer, which carried out the study, said: ‘Women with ovarian cancer are being failed at diagnosis, in access to trials and effective drugs, and they lack support. They deserve better than this.’
A fifth of sufferers aged 50 or above were first told they had irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) despite official guidelines stating older women with symptoms of IBS should be screened for ovarian cancer.
And 40 per cent of patients said their GP had not considered their symptoms to be serious, with nearly one in ten told they may have a mental health problem instead. A further 41 per cent of women had to visit their doctor at least three times before being referred for cancer tests, according to the research.
Even when women were referred for tests, three quarters were not told they might have ovarian cancer.
The cancer is often misdiagnosed or diagnosed late because of a lack of awareness about the symptoms among both the public and doctors. Signs include persistent stomach swelling, appetite loss and pelvic or abdominal pain.
Every year 7,300 women are diagnosed with the disease and 4,100 die. Only a third of women survive for ten years after diagnosis and 15 per cent die within two months.
Target Ovarian Cancer interviewed 396 ovarian cancer patients, as well as 504 GPs and 41 nurses for its annual Pathfinder survey.
It found nearly half of cancer nurses did not think their unit had enough staff to care properly for patients, while two thirds of the nurses surveyed did not have time to explain the symptoms of recurrent ovarian cancer.
Only one in four patients were involved in a clinical trial, despite more than half saying that they would like to be involved in one.
The report authors wrote: ‘Too many women continue to think cervical screening protects them against ovarian cancer and many have a false confidence in their ability to spot the symptoms of ovarian cancer.
‘Women continue to face repeat visits to their GP before being referred for diagnostic tests and many GPs still falsely believe symptoms only present themselves in the later stages of the disease and continue to be unaware of the importance of family history on both sides of the family.’
Professor Michael Peake, from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, who oversaw the research, said the results showed ‘where women’s lives could be saved if the quality of services were to be improved and, where necessary, investment made’.
For more info, go to:

Read on »

Apigenin-A Promising Anti-Cancer Bioflavonoid

I notice that some complain that there aren’t any (or many) scientific cites and references in some of the articles on this site. So I’m making a more concerted effort to give those out as they do exist. I hope that this helps people as we often get overexcited about promising natural treatments for cancer and other diseases.
Sometimes it seems as if there isn’t any science behind the claims that many people make about alternative cancer treatments, so by doing this maybe we can give more credibility to the things that we say. Many people just assume that there isn’t any science on this stuff so it’s probably better for everyone to start to refer to more journal articles regarding these things.
Apigenin is another promising flavonoid compounds that’s naturally found in fruit, as it’s a citrus bioflavonoid. Most flavonoids have anti-oxidant, anti-tumor and anti-inflammatory activity. Grape seed extract is another flavonoid, along with pycnogenol which comes from pine bark of a tree known as Pinus pinaster.
I think that there are a lot of sources of information about apigenin out there. One article has 44 cites to studies that were performed on apigenin.
This is an abstract of a study that some scientists performed recently. I thought it was interesting and hope that it proves to be of value to you if you’re searching for natural compounds and non-pharmaceutical approaches that may enable you to help yourself back to optimum health.
For more information, here are some of the best alternative cancer web sites you can find to get yourself educated!

Downregulation of NEDD9 by apigenin suppresses migration, invasion, and metastasis of colorectal cancer cells.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2016 Nov 15 ;311:106-112. Epub 2016 Aug 20. PMID: 27664007
Jin Dai, Peter G Van Wie, Leonard Yenwong Fai, Donghern Kim, Lei Wang, Pratheeshkumar Poyil, Jia Luo, Zhuo Zhang
Apigenin is a natural flavonoid which possesses multiple anti-cancer properties such as anti-proliferation, anti-inflammation, and anti-metastasis in many types of cancers including colorectal cancer. Neural precursor cell expressed developmentally downregulated 9 (NEDD9) is a multi-domain scaffolding protein of the Cas family which has been shown to correlate with cancer metastasis and progression. The present study investigates the role of NEDD9 in apigenin-inhibited cell migration, invasion, and metastasis of colorectal adenocarcinoma DLD1 and SW480 cells. The results show that knockdown of NEDD9 inhibited cell migration, invasion, and metastasis and that overexpression of NEDD9 promoted cell migration and invasion of DLD1 cells and SW4890 cells. Apigenin treatment attenuated NEDD9 expression at protein level, resulting in reduced phosphorylations of FAK, Src, and Akt, leading to inhibition on cell migration, invasion, and metastasis of both DLD1 and SW480 cells. The present study has demonstrated that apigenin inhibits cell migration, invasion, and metastasis through NEDD9/Src/Akt cascade in colorectal cancer cells. NEDD9 may function as a biomarker for evaluation of cancer aggressiveness and for selection of therapeutic drugs against cancer progression.
For more info, go to:

Read on »

The Real Reason People Fall for ‘Miracle Cures’

First of all, there are no such things as ‘miracle cures.’ Whatever treatment or substance in question, it has a certain level of effectiveness.  And that effectiveness can range from 100% effective to 0% effective.  But then again, some treatments actually cause cancer. I’m not quite sure how to rate their effectiveness. -100% perhaps?
The gullibility of people to get duped into paying for quack cures for cancer (or any other disease) is only because they’re searching for something that has a better chance of working than what the Medical Industry is offering.
People aren’t as stupid as Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment would like to believe. The lethal toxicity of chemotherapy and radiation are legendary, even to people who still allow themselves to be treated with them. Just about everybody I know has a gruesome story of a friend or family member who died a horrible, painful death due to chemotherapy and radiation.
The bottom line is that if Big Pharma wasn’t in bed with the Medical Establishment (and government regulators) to limit people’s access to safer, more effective treatments, they would already have found them.  There’s no way that they wouldn’t have found them considering the many billions of dollars that have been spend on cancer research, along with the millions of man-hours of research work that has been conducted by scientists and researchers.
I, personally, have noticed that the entire direction of research has been commandeered by Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment so that no cheap, effective, readily available treatments for cancer will be found. And even more sinister, the people who have found them have all been summarily suppressed, maligned, ridiculed, regulated, banned, excoriated, and in some instances, murdered so that they can be silenced. The same fate has befallen every maverick MD, PhD, DO, ND, MS, RN, etc., or even laypeople who have found more effective disease treatments. But cancer is their best ‘golden goose,’ and is the most jealously guarded scheme.
If Big Pharma was doing such a great job at curing cancer and other diseases, there wouldn’t even  be an alternative cancer or alternative health movement. Only the terminally brainwashed, those who do not seek to question the status quo or who actually identify themselves with it continue to support it. More and more people are taking the steps to learn about other more sane approaches to cancer treatment and health care.
At the rate we are going, the health care industry is going to bankrupt America, and if left unheeded, the entire planet. Conventional cancer treatment regimens often cost upwards of $5-10,000 per month. All in an era of falling wages, jobs, and rising prices for most things. Conventional medicine is simply not sustainable. It’s more about profits than it is about what’s best for patients, or even what’s best for the country. It’s not right when medical bills are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in America. And it’s even worse that most of those bankrupted by medical bills actually had health insurance! This is refined gouging, and it’s a sign that there’s too much profiteering going on.
In fact, most of the shady quack things that they’re accusing alternative cancer practitioners of doing could just as easily apply to what mainstream oncologists do. They are feeding on the desperation and vulnerability of the seriously ill. They use high-pressure sales tactics on these patients. They dissuade them from investigating any other treatment methods not under Big Pharma control. They refuse to work with patients who want to use other treatment methods and threaten not to work with them if they do.  They try to scare patients into accepting chemotherapy and radiation, telling them that they will die if they don’t quickly agree to them.  They use treatments that are readily identified as highly toxic and poisonous right in the drug inserts, so it’s not like anybody is making this up.
But they persist. I guess that it’s “profits at any cost.”  If they haven’t stopped it yet, after many decades of the same failed treatments, they’re not going to ever stop. They’ll only stop when enough people start saying “HELL NO!” to chemo and radiation and make it unprofitable.  They will continue to prey upon the uninformed, the fearful, the trusting, the gullible who trust these people selling them false hope with poisons masquerading as medicines.
Now I’m not supporting Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS), but some people have claimed it worked for them. But there are safer, more sane alternative options out there. Many of them can actually be used with chemotherapy and radiation. And some of them actually protect you from the devastating side effects of chemo and radiation. In almost all of the testimonials I’ve seen, the conventional health care practitioners are astonished when these patients actually get better and don’t suffer from the serious side effects of their ‘medicines.’ And they also never ask what the person is doing to cure their cancer. They just tell them to ‘keep doing whatever you’re doing’ because they don’t want to incur the wrath of the Medical Establishment.
And we already know that Quackwatch is ran by a Big Pharma shill, Dr Stephen Barrett who himself could qualify as a quack himself.
But no measurement of the placebo effect is ever mentioned for traditional cancer treatments. If it works for alternative cancer treatments, it stands to reason that it is also in play for conventional cancer treatments.
Also, no consideration of the effect of politics and conflicts of interest are mentioned when we evaluate conventional cancer treatments. The Medical Establishment is making huge sums of money based on the current methods of cancer treatment. I don’t see them stepping outside of their ‘cancer treatment box’ in any way. The same old paradigm creating the same old dismal results. Massaging the statistics doesn’t translate to reality, no matter how much or how long it goes on. And that’s why people still fear a cancer diagnosis along with the cancer treatments.
For more information, here are some of the best alternative cancer web sites you can find to get yourself educated!

Quackery feeds on the desperation and vulnerability of those who are seriously ill. Some experts have advice on how to avoid being duped.
There are plenty of other “miracle” healers trying to lure consumers into spending billions of dollars each year on fraudulent health products, according to Quackwatch, a nonprofit corporation that combats health fraud.
“The reality is that all people who are seeking help for an illness do so with a set of expectations and hopes about getting better,” Dr. David Gitlin, chief of medical psychiatry at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, told Healthline. “The need to get better, fear of failing treatment, and fear of death can drive people’s expectations so much that they are willing to believe almost anything in the hopes of getting those expectations met.”
A form of faith healing
In addition to desperation, Gitlin points to the human need to believe.
“This has been going on for thousands and thousands of years. It is faith healing,” he said. “I don’t say that in a negative way. There are many well-respected religions in which faith healing is an important component. Religion and spirituality may help more people in the world than medicine does partly because the human condition has a need to believe. When people lose a reason to believe we know people fail and die.”
Lipman says faith-based belief adds to people’s vulnerability.
Still, positive thinking may make people feel better, adds Gitlin.
“Good doctors know that part of treatment is helping you to build resiliency, positivity, and hope because that’s part of what contributes to the improvement of all medicines,” Gitlin says, all while presenting realistic expectations.
“When you tell someone their likelihood of surviving this cancer for more than 6 months is 10 percent, a lot of people will believe they’re in that 10 percent, but there is a natural bell curve to all diseases. Some people will die quickly, some will live the average amount of time, and others will live longer,” he said.
“When we hear statistics we have this unconscious drive that prevents us from giving in and may drive us to believe anything. In many ways this is a good human quality,” Gitlin added. “The problem is there are a lot of bad people in the world who take advantage of that human desire and need and that’s what charlatanism is at its basic core. It’s not that they trick people so much as prey on those vulnerable individuals who are so desperate to change their circumstance against all evidence.”
Placebo effect plays a part
Positive thinking carries over into the placebo effect, a phenomenon that occurs when a fake treatment (placebo) such as water or sugar is given to a person, and actually improves the person’s condition.
“We know that the need to believe, the desire and the expectation and hope for improvement can at least give the perception of improvement,” said Gitlin. “I think this may be the reason why people who seek out these cures then go on to say the miracle helped them. They can distort their own thinking so they may say ‘I feel better. I know my cancer has shrunk’ even though the data would show that it didn’t. Sooner or later, they come to realize it didn’t work or they may believe it stopped working. But what’s fascinating is that they perceptually did feel better.”
Are all natural approaches shams?
Barbara M. Rocha, N.D., a certified traditional naturopath, says while MMS and other “miracle cures” may be dangerous and unhealthy, not all natural remedies are.
“First of all, in natural medicine/healing, whatever term you want to use, we never say we can heal or cure you,” Rocha told Healthline. “Naturopathic medicine is not a ‘miracle cure,’ nor is any type of holistic treatment. It is about getting the body back into proper alignment in all aspects so that the body can move back to the proper state. And there is never just one answer or modality to accomplish it.”
“I tell my patients this takes work and time to turn things around and isn’t ‘bibbidi-bobbidi-boo.’ It takes commitment to themselves. I have been in this field a long time and have a great belief system, but never have I seen a ‘miracle’ in the sense that [the MMS church] uses,” she said.
Still, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns that consumers should be mindful of products that claim to prevent, treat, or cure diseases or other health conditions but are not proven safe and effective for those uses.
“Relying on unproven products or treatments can be dangerous, and may cause harmful delays in getting the proper diagnosis and appropriate treatments,” says Lyndsay Meyer, FDA spokesperson.
For more info, go to:

Read on »

The Treatment is Almost as Bad as the Disease

Even though they’re not considering the reduced quality of life of cancer survivors, it would appear from this study that children that survive cancer have a much higher rate of heart disease. What kind of treatment philosophy is it when the treatment works (let’s assume, and that’s a very shaky assumption) on one disease, but causes another one that’s just as fatal?
Why is it that we have to endure treatments that make you deathly sick? That sounds like ‘we had to destroy the village in order to save it’, if you remember that ironic statement from the soldiers involved in the My Lai 4 massacre in Vietnam. It doesn’t make any sense.
It doesn’t matter how you try to clean it up.  Treatment for one disease that causes another disease just as serious is a very primitive, faulty, ridiculous, stupid way to treat any disease. It’s like treating a gunshot by shooting the patient again!
But because the people administering these crazy treatment strategies have the sanction of the Medical Establishment, the government regulators and have fancy letters behind their names, we accept this. It’s like people are hypnotized by these people. Common sense just goes out of the window.
Worse yet, people that suggest a new paradigm or more rational treatment strategies are called quacks and other derogatory names.  Most people don’t want to believe that the people who develop these insane strategies have massive conflicts of interest. So they continue to buy into these myths.
There have to be better ways to treat cancer. And if the people in charge of the research and treatment methods refuse to find those ways, or if they cannot find them, they should be relieved of their duties and allow others who can do better to do it.  This may be tough because the people who populate the status quo are making many billions of dollars collectively, and you know that they don’t want to give up all that money, status and power.
People need to get educated, learn to read between the lines and stop allowing these people to scare us into accepting poisons masquerading as medicines for cancer treatments. Or cancer rates and deaths will continue to increase, regardless of how much they manipulate the statistics to make it appear that these poisons are effective treatments for cancer.
8 of the Best Alternative Cancer Web Sites right here…

Patients diagnosed at a younger age may face a higher heart risk, the study authors said.
Cancer treatment is thought to boost the risk of death from heart disease later on, particularly among survivors of childhood cancer, breast cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma, the researchers said.
This new study, published in the Nov. 7 issue of Circulation, explored whether the age of cancer diagnosis might influence serious heart risks.
“It is important for clinicians because it helps them focus the most intensive follow-up care on those most at risk,” said study senior author Mike Hawkins. He’s director of the Center for Childhood Cancer Survivor Studies at the University of Birmingham in England.
“It is important for survivors because it empowers them by providing them with their long-term chances of a specific side effect of cancer treatment,” Hawkins said in a journal news release.

The new study analyzed data on more than 200,000 cancer survivors in the United Kingdom. They were between ages 15 and 39 when diagnosed and survived at least five years.
The researchers found that 6 percent of the deaths were attributed to heart disease. And those diagnosed in their teens had a more than four-fold higher risk of death from heart disease than people who didn’t have cancer.
Those diagnosed at ages 35 to 39 had only a 1.2 times higher risk of heart disease compared to similar-aged people, the study found.
The impact of young age at diagnosis seemed to be most crucial in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma: 7 percent of those diagnosed from ages 15 to 19 died of heart disease by age 55 compared to 2 percent of those diagnosed in their late 30s.
Less than 1 percent of people in the general population would be expected to die by 55 of heart disease, the researchers noted.
Overall, Hodgkin lymphoma survivors were 3.8 times more likely to die from heart disease than people of similar age who didn’t have the disease.
Survivors of other types of cancer — leukemia, lung cancer and breast cancer, among them — also faced a higher risk of death from heart disease, the researchers said.
The study participants were diagnosed between 1971 and 2006, and followed until 2014.
For more info, go to:

Read on »

Immune checkpoint cancer therapies may cause rare cardiac side effects

Despite all of the hoopla about immunotherapy being the latest ‘game changer’, once again we witness the harmful side effects of another cancer treatment method being strongly pushed by Big Pharma.
Immunotherapy is being touted as the latest miracle method of beating cancer. Unfortunately, it appears that this particular method is not as deadly as chemotherapy and radiation, but there are still dangers. It would appear that they need to do more study of this one so that they don’t damage people’s hearts with it. They say that immunotherapy is effective in about 25-33% of patients.
A huge problem with immunotherapy is that the average price for treatment is about $100,000/year. It’s a huge expense to patients and the healthcare industry, and the country.
The story never changes. The only strategies that Big Pharma appears to like are the ones that have some sort of harmful effects on the human body. Actually using something that is harmful to cancer and good for the body isn’t on the ‘playlist.’  The problem is that most substances that aren’t harmful to your body are usually not able to be patented so Big Pharma businesses would not be interested in anything like that. No profits-no chance of being used. And if you think about it, they would actively go out of their way to suppress and get rid of anything that would destroy profits of their drugs. And they do…
When will people finally start to realize that businesses exist to make profit? When you tie profits into health care, the well being of the patients is going to be secondary to the profit motive. Yes all these people involved in health care and cancer have families and friends that come down with cancer, but they still have a duty to answer to the profit motive. And that’s exactly what most of them do. Unfortunately, financial concerns usually have a higher priority than what is best for the patient. It’s a lot to ask one person to take on the entire Medical Establishment and risk their livelihood.
Why do you think that Big Pharma doesn’t fund ANY research of natural (non-toxic) treatments for most diseases? Because if their strategy was really to cure cancer and other diseases, it wouldn’t take this long to find something more effective than what they’re doing already. Part of it is that the FDA has a huge barrier to entry with the average drug study costing $800 million to conduct. How’s that for a barrier to entry?
And worse yet, why do you think that everything they allegedly study that is non-toxic or non-patentable ends up as ‘there is no evidence that [insert cheap natural effective substance here] has any effect on [insert Big Pharma disease here]?’ Aren’t you curious about why the only effective treatments for any disease are profitable for Big Pharma? Every single time? Even though they scour the plant kingdom for effective molecules they can patent at a feverish rate?
What I do know is that if a natural treatment was killing patients or causing fatal cardiac side effects, it would be all over the mainstream news and they’d be accusing the practitioners of being dangerous quacks and would be clamoring for their imprisonment. But it’s ok if they kill patients with drugs because that’s the approved method of treating patients. That’s what we are told is objective ‘science.’  And the body count continues to rise…
For more information, here are some of the best alternative cancer web sites you can find to get yourself educated!

(bold type emphasis is mine)
Combination therapy utilizing two approved immunotherapy drugs for cancer treatment may cause rare and sometimes fatal cardiac side effects linked to an unexpected immune response.
In a study led by Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) investigators and published in the Nov. 3 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers describe two cases of acute and unexpected fatal myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) that occurred in melanoma patients following treatment with a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab.
Both drugs are FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors which stimulate an anti-tumor response in cancer patients. Ipilimumab is an anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte- associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) antibody, and nivolumab, an anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibody.
The use of these immune checkpoint inhibitors, especially in combination using two such therapies, has enhanced the treatment of several types of malignancy.
Common side effects of these agents such as inflammation of the skin, colon, liver, endocrine glands and lung, are thought to arise from off-target activation of T cells in the immune system.
In the two study cases, a 65-year-old woman and a 63-year-old man, both with metastatic melanoma, were hospitalized nearly two weeks after initiation of the combination therapy.
Javid Moslehi, M.D., assistant professor of Medicine, director of the Cardio-Oncology Program at VUMC and corresponding author of the study, said both patients had seemingly mild symptoms at the time of hospitalization.
“The patients came with rather vague symptoms including fatigue and muscle aches. What made us take notice, however, were blood tests for cardiac damage that were extremely elevated and the electrocardiograms (EKG) that were abnormal in both cases. The problems quickly advanced such that the patients each needed a pacemaker to control the heart’s electrical activity. The degree of cardiac arrhythmia was striking,” Moslehi explained.
“Even aggressive combinations of these immune therapies are usually well tolerated with very selective activity against the tumor instead of self,” said study first author Douglas Johnson, M.D., M.S.C.I., assistant professor of Medicine and clinical director of Melanoma. “But we occasionally observe these cases of wildly dysregulated autoimmune activation.”
Johnson said VUMC physicians quickly treated the patients with high-dose corticosteroids (methylprednisolone). Despite aggressive treatment, both patients died from myocarditis.
The two similar cases stimulated a cross-disciplinary effort at VUMC to investigate the mechanisms of toxicity and potential treatments for patients with such rare reactions. The investigators collaborated with colleagues at Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that makes both drugs.
Justin Balko, Pharm.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of Medicine and Cancer Biology and leader of Molecular Oncology in the Center for Cancer Targeted Therapies at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC), said on autopsy and biopsy of the cardiac tissue it was clear that there was an immune reaction to the heart. VUMC pathologists found robust T cell and macrophage infiltrates. Importantly, there were shared populations of T cells infiltrating the myocardium which were identical to those present in tumor and skeletal muscle.
“One hypothesis based on the data is that essentially the body is seeing the heart and muscle tissue as foreign, just like the tumor,” Balko said. “This gives us a starting point to develop a model to see how consistent this is with other cases as they appear and once we have that model, determine the right way to intervene so that we can keep other patients safe.”
Study authors said global data reveal that myocarditis has occurred in less than one percent of patients treated with the ipilimumab/nivolumab combination therapy to date, suggesting this is a rare, potentially fatal T cell-driven drug reaction.
Johnson suggested “presumably the treatment strategy would involve high-dose steroids and possibly other intensive immune-suppressive drugs, as well. The best regimen is unclear at this point.”
For more info, go to:

Read on »

Cancer gougers: price of crucial leukemia drug is hiked 40% to $200,000 a year

I’m surprised that anybody was actually admonished about this, considering how long they’ve been getting away with charging sky high prices for their drugs. Maybe it’s a turn for the better.
What’s really crazy is that in the article, they say that the price for the cancer drug had actually went up by $80,000 over a few years. So $120,000/year for this drug isn’t gouging, but $200,000 is???  So are we to understand that $120,000/year for this drug is economical, fair and affordable but $200,000/year is where we draw the line?  $120,000/year fits right into the average cancer patient’s budget but $200,000/year doesn’t?
Do you see the cruel irony here? Or is it just me?
Is this the affordable health care Obamacare was supposed to create?  It appears to me that $120,000/year for a medicine is just as much gouging as $200,000/year.  And it’s not even a cure! In what alternate reality is this even in the neighborhood of acceptable?
8 of the Best Alternative Cancer Web Sites right here…

Lawmakers have slammed a pharmaceutical company for raising the price of a crucial leukemia drug by 40 per cent in less than a year.
Bernie Sanders is leading the interrogation into ARIAD Pharmaceuticals in the latest battle between government and big pharma firms.
ARIAD produces Iclusig, which is used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia in some patients.
The company has subtly bumped the price of the drug by at least 8 per cent every quarter – amounting to a 39 per cent increase.
Now it costs $200,000 a year – up $80,000 in just a few years.
It targets an abnormal protein which prevents the body from regulating white blood cells.
Some patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia use the drug in combination with others.
But for people with chronic myeloid leukemia, this is one of the most crucial forms of medication.
The majority of chronic myeloid leukemia sufferers (95 per cent) have a genetic abnormality that means their body produces the abnormal protein BCR-ABL.
The latest hike, announced this month, has been met with outraged cries from patients.
It comes on the heels of two major controversies – when disgraced Turig CEO Martin Shkreli increased the price of life-saving drug Daraprim, and when drugmaker Mylan recently hiked the price of the EpiPen.
Sen Bernie Sanders claims ARIAD’s price hike is in the same league – and has written to the firm with Rep Elijah Cummings, D-Md, for an explanation.
‘These outrageous sales tactics indicate that ARIAD is more concerned with its profit than with its patients,’ Sanders and Cummings wrote.
Sanders also tweeted about the company last week: ‘Drug corporations’ greed is unbelievable. Ariad has raised the price of a leukemia drug to almost $199,000 a year.’
According to data from Truven Health Analytics, the list price for a year’s supply of Iclusig tablets has increased from $114,960 in 2012 to $198,732 in October 2016.
Sanders and Cummings also said they are investigating whether the company tried to boost profits by tweaking pill dosages and quantities to charge insurers and patients more for less medicine.
The FDA approved Iclusig in 2012 as a treatment for two rare types of leukemia, but the company suspended sales the next October because of heightened concerns that patients could suffer from life-threatening blood clots.
In December 2013, it relaunched with added warnings and to a smaller subset of patients.
The inquiry comes as other pharmaceutical companies have come under fire from Congress for price hikes.
Martin Shkreli, the brash former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, became the poster child of pharmaceutical-industry greed last fall for hiking the price of a life-saving drug, Daraprim, by more than 5,000 percent.
For more info, go to:

Read on »