Cancer Prevention
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » EDS Lounge

free skin care · Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:14 pm

Please read the following links and continue to research on your own... your health could be at risk.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/12/vitamin-d-may-prevent-breast-cancer.aspx

http://bustingbreastcancer.org/prevention/vitamin-d/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/26/this-could-be-even-bigger-than-the-vitamin-d-discovery.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET_2w9OOdtY

Please get your D3 levels checked... The test is called 25(OH)D

Your levels should be NO LOWER than 50 even better at 60... anything lower than 40 is deficient and frankly 40 is still too low. If your Dr tells you otherwise please, please research. It could mean the difference between getting breast cancer / prostrate cancer etc.

BTW I learned one year before I even knew I had breast cancer that my D3 levels were zilch (below 20) I found out by a routine blood work-up from my NEW DR! I didn’t know what that could mean at the time... I sure found out! Research shows 50% of women w/breast cancer and men w/prostrate cancer was dangerously low in D3 (20 and lower)

I may have learned too late...but now my girls know and every member in my family. Knowing what I know now will hopefully prevent a recurrence. And, just maybe I can prevent someone else from the same... PASS IT ON

BTW RE: FACIAL TRAINING

All the facial training to replace facial bone may be for not if you are deficient in D3 and K2mk7

In 2011, researchers presented findings at a meeting of the Endocrine Society in Boston that revealed that women in their 40′s and 50′s who have extensive skin wrinkling are much more likely than their peers to have low bone mass.

Researchers noted the relationship between wrinkles and bone density in every single bone tested which included hip, heel, and lumbar (spine). In addition, this relationship existed regardless of body fat percentage and age.

All the calcium in the world will do nothing for you if you are deficient in D3 and K2… in fact high levels of calcium can cause serious health problems if you don’t have the right amount of D3 and K2 to deal with it properly

free skin care · Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:03 pm

Thank you for this Deb, my mum had breast cancer (in remission now) but nobody has tested her for Vit D levels Exclamation

I am now phoning to get her to get her levels checked!

free skin care · Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:52 pm

Deb Crowley wrote:

In 2011, researchers presented findings at a meeting of the Endocrine Society in Boston that revealed that women in their 40′s and 50′s who have extensive skin wrinkling are much more likely than their peers to have low bone mass.

Researchers noted the relationship between wrinkles and bone density in every single bone tested which included hip, heel, and lumbar (spine). In addition, this relationship existed regardless of body fat percentage and age.

Sort of right, but not completely correct. The study was done on 114 women who were within 3 years of their last menstrual period. Women taking hormone therapy or those who had facial "surgical alterations" of the skin were excluded from the study. All women resided in Connecticut or New York state. So they were women who lived in the northeastern US and were in the early phase of (full) menopause. What the researchers found was a correlation: Wrinkle score has an inverse correlation with bone density, and firmer skin showed denser bones. But correlation is not causation; it just means there is a relationship between the two examined variables. Furthermore, since all subjects were from the less-sunny NE coast of the US, the findings may not be valid for all women (ie: residents of Florida and California as study participants may show different results or even no correlation between the two variables).

Your post indicates to me that you have assumed that bone density causes increased facial wrinkles. However, the lead researcher Dr. Lubna Pal stated:

Ongoing data from KEEPS will allow the research team to determine if severe skin wrinkles in early postmenopausal women predict more rapid bone loss. This finding is just the tip of the iceberg.

Dr. Pal is saying skin wrinkles may be predictive of bone loss, but bone loss is not necessarily a cause of wrinkles. It may have to do with skin collagen levels which decline with age (particularly following menopause) and the shared tissue infrastructure between the skin and bones (i.e. the protein building-block collagen).

https://www.endocrine.org/sitecore%20modules/web/~/media/endosociety/Files/Publications/Endocrine%20News/Issues/2011/EndocrineNewsJuly2011.pdf#search=%22bone density wrinkles%22 (See Page 31)

Quick question for the forum: Does anyone know if decreased bone density results in a loss of bone size? I know that in aging bones become more porous and this results in less density in the inner core which leads to less strength and easier fracture; I am just not sure it means less overall size (girth, circumference etc.).

free skin care · Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:44 pm

Just piping in to say -
that I'm really grateful and relieved that we have a wise and knowledgeable Primacy Care Physician who knows about this "kind-of-stuff*.

I would've disliked having to argue with him. Very Happy

btw - Thanks, Deb Crowley, for creating this thread.

free skin care · Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:01 pm

aprile wrote:

Very interesting Deb - i will check out vitamin K2. I imagine there arent a lot of food sources. Ho hum another pill to add to the protocol. Lol. ��

I did wonder about this too ^ ^.

(from a 2008 article)

Vitamin K2: The Missing Nutrient
By Chris Kresser on May 6, 2008

http://chriskresser.com/vitamin-k2-the-missing-nutrient

(snippet from article)

All of this evidence points to the possibility that vitamin K2 may be an essential nutrient in the human diet. So where does one find vitamin K2 in foods? The following is a list of the foods highest in vitamin K2, as measured by the USDA:

Foods high in vitamin K2
■Natto
■Hard cheese
■Soft cheese
■Egg yolk
■Butter
■Chicken liver
■Salami
■Chicken breast
■Ground beef
Unfortunately, precise values for some foods that are likely to be high in K2 (such as organ meats) are not available at this time. The pancreas and salivary glands would be richest; reproductive organs, brains, cartilage and possibly kidneys would also be very rich; finally, bone would be richer than muscle meat. Fish eggs are also likely to be rich in K2.

It was once erroneously believed that intestinal bacteria are a major contributor to vitamin K status. However, the majority of evidence contradicts this view. Most of the vitamin K2 produced in the intestine are embedded within bacterial membranes and not available for absorption. Thus, intestinal production of K2 likely makes only a small contribution to vitamin K status. (Unden & Bongaerts, 1997, pp. 217-234)

On the other hand, fermented foods, however, such as sauerkraut, cheese and natto (a soy dish popular in Japan), contain substantial amounts of vitamin K2. Natto contains the highest concentration of K2 of any food measured; nearly all of it is present as MK-7, which research has shown to be a highly effective form. A recent study demonstrated that MK-7 increased the percentage of osteocalcin in humans three times more powerfully than did vitamin K1. (Schurgers & Vermeer, 2000, pp. 298-307)

It is important to note that commercial butter is not a significantly high source of vitamin K2. Dr. Weston A. Price, who was the first to elucidate the role of vitamin K2 in human health (though he called it “Activator X” at the time) analyzed over 20,000 samples of butter sent to him from various parts of the world. As mentioned previously in this paper, he found that the Activator X concentration varied 50-fold. Animals grazing on vitamin K-rich cereal grasses, especially wheat grass, and alfalfa in a lush green state of growth produced fat with the highest amounts of Activator X, but the soil in which the pasture was grown also influenced the quality of the butter. It was only the vitamin-rich butter grown in three feet or more of healthy top soil that had such dramatic curing properties when combined with cod liver oil in Dr. Price’s experiments and clinical practice.

ETA - 'Twas my underlined. I don't know if there are precise values currently available in 2013.

free skin care · Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:29 am

Kath91 wrote:

Kassy_A wrote:

....Vitamin K2:

If you are on ANY aspirin, or anti-coagulant therapy, you should NOT take an additional vitamin K supplement. (vitamin K is a coagulant!)....

Just to underscore one of all your great tips ^^ ---- wanted to post this *warning* I remembered reading re the VitK2 supplement from the upthread VitaCost link/post.

"Warnings
Pregnant or lactating women, diabetics, hypoglycemics, and people with known medical conditions and/or taking drugs should consult with a licensed physician and/or pharmacist prior to taking dietary supplements. Keep out of reach of children. Individuals currently taking anticoagulants such as Coumadin (warfarin) should consult with their personal physician before taking supplemental vitamin K. Do not exceed recommended dose."

Hi Kath,

If you are taking a Vit. K complex it generally comes with K1 which does effect blood (clotting factors) that’s why the warning if you are taking blood thinners. However K2Mk7 does just the opposite. The following can be found on this link: http://www.healthyimmunity.com/forum/viewthread.aspx?id=169
____________

Vitamin K2 and Blood Clotting

The "K" in vitamin K comes from the German word koagulation. Vitamin K1 is used by your liver as a clotting factor, whereas vitamin K2 is used by the brain, vasculature, breasts and kidneys and is not a blood clotting agent. In fact, in the brain, vitamin K2 contributes to the production of myelin and fats essential for brain health and protects against oxidative damage. Taking broad-spectrum antibiotics can reduce vitamin K production in the gut by nearly 74 percent compared to people not taking these antibiotics. Additionally, the elderly have reduced vitamin K2 production. Deficiencies can lead to nose bleeds, easy bruising and extremely heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia).

Vitamin K2 is not involved in clotting like Vitamin K1.

Further to the informatin above Vitamin K2 MK7 from Natto has natural clot busting properties. Japanese researcher Dr. Hiroyuki Sumi had spent many years searching for a natural thrombolytic agent that could successfully dissolve blood clots associated with heart attacks and stroke. Finally in 1980, after testing more than 173 natural foods, Sumi found what he was looking for.

Some traditional Natto was dropped onto artificial thrombus (blood clot) in a petri
dish and allowed to stand at 37 degrees C (approximately body temperature)—and over the next 18 hours, the thrombus around the Natto completely dissolved! Sumi named the newly discovered protease enzyme Nattokinase, which means “enzyme in Natto.” Dr. Sumi remarked that Nattokinase showed “a potency matched by no other enzyme.”

How does Nattokinase (K2 Mk7) work?

Nattokinase enhances our body’s natural ability to fight blood clots, and has an advantage over blood thinners because it has a prolonged effect without side effects.

Vitamin K2 Mk7 like Nattokinase:

Supports normal blood pressure Prevents blood clots from forming Dissolves existing blood clots Dissolves fibrin Enhances the body’s production of plasmin and other clot-dissolving agents, including urokinase (an enzyme produced by the kidneys and found in the urine, which activates plasminogen)

Research studies Nattokinase has been the subject of numerous scientific studies, including two small human trials. In 1990, Dr. Sumi’s research team published a series of studies demonstrating the fibrinolytic effects of Nattokinase.

___________________

Because of my breast cancer I had to take Tamoxifen which CAUSES blood clots... consequently I had a TIA and was then told to take a low dose aspirin (baby aspirin) once a day. Can't believe they call it baby aspirin.. you would NEVER give aspirin to a baby! Then wound up with sever gastritis...seriously? really? So now NO Tamoxifen... so done with it!

Anyway... It's a damn good thing K2Mk7 does not cause clotting because I am on mega doses (2 mg) to counter my D3 consumption 20,000IU This works out to 1mcg of K2Mk7 for every 1,000IU of D3. THANK GOD there is no toxicity (that they know of) Rolling Eyes

free skin care · Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:38 pm

bethany wrote:

I originally had a D3 level of 11...it takes 10,000ius to keep me between 55 and 75. But no one ever told me to take K2. Shock

So glad you caught it in time!!! Be sure you get k2Mk7 Not k2Mk4 both good but Research the difference. Best for breast k2Mk7 even though Mk7 says it's soy (not good for cancer) it is fermented soy... no problem

free skin care · Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:34 am

aprile wrote:

Don't be a victim of our current medical model and protocol which is to radiate, overbiopsy and all the rest. Take control of your health now and you will be healthy! Wishing you all the best. Smile

HTH, Aprile

The only way to find out if a breast lump is cancerous or benign is to have a biopsy. Five of my friends have been diagnosed with breast cancer and they have all gone through radiation, chemo and two had a mastectomy. As traumatic as all that was, they have all come out the other side cancer free and healthy. Without treatment there is every chance that they would not have survived.

I would hate to think that a women who finds a lump in their breast would not seek treatment. I think to advise women not to have a breast lump checked is irresponsible.

free skin care · Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:06 am

Dr christopher cured cancers with potassium.Also lugols have potassium in it which they use for FBD.
I have also been told that bitter almonds are powerfull anti cancer stuff.

free skin care · Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:03 pm

Maybe it's just me, but I truly believe that 3 things should NOT be discussed on a skincare forum;

1.) Religion
2.) Politics
3.) Medical Advice

It's one thing to be arrogant about a skin care agenda or routine, but it is totally irresponsible to insinuate that supplements and clean living will cure cancer.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:51 am

I think this is such dangerous ground. When you have cancer show up (and my dear hubby had it and has been in remission now for some time) you do get to the point where you will try anything - and some of the things that have been said here are dangerous and it fears me with dread. had I been on the forum when he was going through it - I was in a desperate place and would have tried anything to get him out of it - and that in itself scares me.

No supplements or clean living can cure cancer and the statements that are being made here are completely irresponsible. Sure make suggestions, but do not try to make out these are factually based.

I'm glad the authorities are going after people who are saying things like cancer can be cured by x,y and z, because it is a big scam. I myself nearly fell for Hulda Clark's bit after reading her book till my doctor told me she had been taken to court over her claims (and rightly so!).

Kassy_A wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but I truly believe that 3 things should NOT be discussed on a skincare forum;

1.) Religion
2.) Politics
3.) Medical Advice

It's one thing to be arrogant about a skin care agenda or routine, but it is totally irresponsible to insinuate that supplements and clean living will cure cancer.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:15 am

There’s very little proof in some of these things Aprile that you are saying (i.e. radiation causes cancer) and so its just your personal opinion not factually based. My dear hubby if he hadn’t had a biopsy would never have found that he had cancer, and it would have no doubt spread without doubt in my mind if it hadn’t been addressed. Whilst the body is a wonderful thing, it needs help at times of crisis. I’m all for prevention, but when things like cancer show up I think its definitely something people need to be educated about and research but the side effects that you mention are not common place. I’m UK based, so our medical protocol is for sure a bit different but they don’t do things unnecessarily (and there would be court cases all over if they did and it was provable).

aprile wrote:

Keliu wrote:

aprile wrote:

Don't be a victim of our current medical model and protocol which is to radiate, overbiopsy and all the rest. Take control of your health now and you will be healthy! Wishing you all the best. Smile

HTH, Aprile

The only way to find out if a breast lump is cancerous or benign is to have a biopsy. Five of my friends have been diagnosed with breast cancer and they have all gone through radiation, chemo and two had a mastectomy. As traumatic as all that was, they have all come out the other side cancer free and healthy. Without treatment there is every chance that they would not have survived.

I would hate to think that a women who finds a lump in their breast would not seek treatment. I think to advise women not to have a breast lump checked is irresponsible.

Read up on the side effects of chemotherapy and biopsies before you post here Keliu. Chemo is causing more re-occurence of breast and other cancers because the cancer cells become resistant. But more importantly biopsies are spreading any existing cancers in the breast via needle track marks. Radiation is a cause of cancer...why use it to treat it? The medical profession has bamboozled all of us into believing their B.S. rhetoric. There's a perfectly viable alternative to mammograms for detection and that's thermograms...the "do no harm" method. Cancer and chemo are big business to the tune of $18,000 a "vile"...WHY on earth would they want to find an alternative or natural cure? But more importantly, after all these years, WHY on earth would they not preach more about prevention? I think you know why.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:25 am

panoslydios wrote:

Are you crazy ?
Did anyone suggest almonds as a formal treatment for someone?

Once again: I have been told that bitter almonds are powerfull anti cancer stuff.

To suggest the above statement is telling someone to throw away his/her formal medications and just eat bitter almonds is 100% retarded.

These were your exact "words of wisdom" posted on the last page:

Quote:

I suggest doctors who fight diseases are idiots and nothing more.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:33 am

We live in the UK where we have free healthcare, my mother has been a GP for over 30 years, I am sure if she or her practice had been "benefitting"
from her/their use of whatever medications they chose to prescribe then we would all know about it. I have never met a GP here who has! Ignorant perhaps , but maybe we just have a better more honest system!

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:40 am

Keliu wrote:

Aprile - considering you have staunch anti-modern medicine views, why have you chosen to use the Neutrosis Stem Cell products?

Keliu - I am not against ALL modern medicine practices. If not for anti-biotics, many would die from infection....that's for sure. Those who lived in the early 1900s were not so fortunate and died from simple infections that could easily be cured by their use. Many genetic diseases might be cured by gene therapy in the future and even stem cell therapy. Stem cells in therapuetic use or even in skincare products is not harmful, it's just controversial in many camps. What I oppose is what I consider to be medical malpractice in the form of "doing more harm" to the patient than good in the name of medicine when we know there are much safer protocols available to the patient. Stem cell products may be controversial, but they are not harmful.

Here's a great excerpt from Dr. Mercola's site who is speaking about Dr. Ralph Moss's book, Questioning Chemotherapy, which documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy in treating most cancers.

Quote:

Dr. Whitaker, a firm believer in Dr. Moss' work and alternative cancer therapy goes on to give some of his personal views:

Statistics Don't Tell the Real Story

What is lost in the unemotional statistic of 500,000 cancer deaths per year is how those people died. Dr. Whitaker goes on to say more about the treatment of cancer: In my opinion, conventional cancer therapy is so toxic and dehumanizing that I fear it far more than I fear death from cancer. We know that conventional therapy doesn't work -- if it did, you would not fear cancer any more than you fear pneumonia. It is the utter lack of certainty as to the outcome of conventional treatment that virtually screams for more freedom of choice in the area of cancer therapy. Yet most so-called alternative therapies regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed, which forces patients to submit to the failures that we know don't work, because there's no other choice.

Personal Belief Systems Determine the Choices You Make

Because cancer treatment is such a sensitive issue, I need to set some ground rules before I tell you what I would do if I had cancer. What follows is what I personally would do. It is not a recommendation for you, and should not be considered as such. It is not even what my wife would do(that would be her decision), nor is it what my young son would do (that would be the joint decision of my wife and myself). The choices to be made in treating cancer are not easy ones, because there is so little certainty of cure in any of them. The course that someone chooses to take is very personal, and reflects not only that person's knowledge of the options, but also his/her beliefs.

Yet, because we are strongly influenced by our natural fear of death, we lineup for conventional cancer therapy, not so much believing that it will work, but hoping that it will not fail. If expensive, debilitating procedures to eliminate acne scars had the same failure rate as cancer treatment, they would be abandoned. It is only because cancer is so often fatal that conventional approaches were not abandoned long ago. We continue to use them not because they work, but because those who perform them have so vigorously eliminated any other choice.

My Imaginary Cancer Scenario

(by Dr. Whitaker)

Though I would approach my own dilemma with hopes of total cure, I would be the first to admit that, regardless of the course I took, the chances of that are small. Consequently, my choices of cancer therapy are a mix of science and philosophy. They are as much a reflection of how I would struggle for survival as of how I would wish to die if the struggle failed. For the purposes of this discussion, let us assume that I have just been diagnosed with cancer of the lung, and a particularly virulent one. (Please understand that I do not have cancer, nor do I smoke.) Before going into what I would do and why, let me say what I wouldn't do, and why.

I Wouldn't Take A Passive Role

If I am going to fight for my life, I want to do just that. I am always perplexed by the news stories of some celebrity, doped to the gills with heinous poison, "courageously battling for his life." What does this mean? The celebrity, who simply accepts conventional cancer therapy, is no more "courageous" than a laboratory mouse. This is not to say that what the celebrity is doing is wrong, only that it is the very opposite of a willful act of courage.

Taking a passive role with today's conventional therapy is terribly dangerous. Recently Jackie Kennedy, after a "courageous fight," succumbed to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma - or did she? Her early demise, attributed to the cancer, was a shock to cancer specialists worldwide, and brought into question the real cause of her death. She had been given an unproved protocol of very high-dose chemotherapy. The drugs alone could easily have caused her death - and this would not be unusual. There are numerous cases of iatrogenic (doctor-induced) deaths from chemotherapy.

I'd Actively Fight For My Life

On the other hand, the cancer patient who says, "no, thanks" to chemotherapy recommended by large cancer treatment centers, and takes off to Grand Bahamas Island to receive Immuno-Augmentative Therapy (IAT); or to Houston, Texas, to receive antineoplastons from Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski; or who heads to the public library to make a battle plan, has begun fighting and is acting courageously.

Whether I win or lose, that is the course I would take. What have I got to lose? Conventional treatment is toxic and simply doesn't work, so I would throw my lot with something safe that might work, and folks, a lot of approaches fit that description. I also believe patients who seek alternative therapies are more optimistic. They have only one worry - the cancer- not the cancer and the therapy!

And Now. Here's What I Would Do

(by Dr. Whitaker)

I'd turn my back on 50 years of institutionalized expertise, because it follows the wrong paradigm. Everything that is done in medicine or in any other discipline fits some paradigm. The paradigm I use for cancer is that it is a systemic problem in which the normal control mechanisms of your body are altered. Your immune system likely bears the largest burden for this control; thus, all techniques that enhance it are promising. Those that damage it are not.

Also, cancer cells are different from normal cells in many ways, including their metabolic profile. At least one non-toxic therapy, hydrazine sulfate, takes advantage of this difference. It has been shown in double-blind trials published in respectable journals to significantly reduce the severe weight loss (cachexia) of advanced cancer, and markedly improve the patient's emotional state, almost to the point of euphoria. It is also inexpensive. Even though hydrazine sulfate has been shown to be effective and non-toxic, and it makes the patient feel better, it is ignored by every major cancer center. Yet I would take it immediately. (For more on hydrazine sulfate, see Ralph Moss' book, The Cancer Industry.)

First, I would Change My Diet

I would switch to a mostly vegetarian diet. I'd also take the Nutritional Supplements "Green foods," such as GREENS+ (800/643-1210) or Green Magma (from Healthy Directions; 800/722-8008, ext. 572). These supplements include the phyto-chemicals, antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals required for optimal health.. I would enhance that basic program with the following:

Vitamin C - 10,000 mg per day in divided doses. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician, did a study in which 100 cancer patients were given 10,000 mg of vitamin C for the rest of their lives, while control patients were not. The patients on vitamin C lived much longer than the age-matched controls. The Mayo Clinic did two studies on vitamin C, and in both studies found that vitamin C did not help. However, both studies were set up in a manner that almost guaranteed failure. Frankly, I think that this was done intentionally to generate negative publicity for this non-toxic approach.

Cartilage - A three- to four-month trial of bovine or shark cartilage. The mucopolysaccharides in cartilage stimulate the immune system and normalize malignant cells. Ninety percent of patients with a variety of cancers responded to a clinical trial of bovine cartilage; shark cartilage has demonstrated success rates of 25 to 50%. VitaCarte bovine cartilage is available from Phoenix BioLabs, 800/947-8482 (suggested dose is 9 g a day). Shark cartilage can be obtained from MHP 800-647-0074 (suggested dose is 1 g per 3 pounds of body weight).

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) - Used as an effective therapy in congestive heart failure, CoQ10 has only recently been studied as a cancer treatment. Cancer patients have been found to have deficiencies of CoQ10. Clinical trials in breast cancer have resulted in no further metastases, improved quality of life (no weight loss and less pain), and partial remission in six of 32 patients. Vitaline makes a chewable CoQ10 with vitamin E (800/648-4755; 503/482-9231, in Canada).

Essiac Tea - 2 ounces 3 times a day. This blend of four herbs -burdock root, sheep's sorrel, slippery elm and Indian rhubarb root- has its genesis in Native American medicinal folklore. Since it was "discovered" by Canadian nurse Rene Caisse in the 1920s, thousands have claimed to have had their cancers cured by this tea. I'd keep on searching. We have the formula if you are interested in purchasing the individual herbs in bulk.

Finally, you should know that if I were battling cancer - or any serious disease, for that matter- I would be in a constant search for effective, non-toxic therapies. One place to begin that search is with Ralph Moss, Ph.D. He is probably the most knowledgeable writer in the world on alternative therapies for cancer, and has recently published a 530-page book, Cancer Therapy, The Independent Consumer's Guide to Nontoxic Treatment and Prevention. (Equinox Press, New York, NY, 1995). In addition, Dr. Moss offers a report service called Healing Choices, which ascertains, through a questionnaire, the type and severity of cancer, and suggests alternatives. This costs $250, and it is well worth it. If I had cancer, I would start here for more information. You can get more information by sending a large SASE to The Cancer Chronicles, 2 Lincoln Square, Suite 31A, New York, NY 10023, or by calling Melissa Wolf at 718/636-4433.

Another source of information is People Against Cancer, which provides a comprehensive counseling service called the Alternative Therapy Program. It includes a review of your medical records by a network of doctors using alternative therapies. It also costs $250. People Against Cancer can be reached at 515/972-4444. Their Internet address is: http://www.dodgenet.com/nocancer.

This is certainly not my final say on cancer treatment, because it changes as new research is done. I want to say again that what I would do is not a recommendation for you. However, it is not a reasonable belief to think that conventional cancer experts offer the best approaches for most cancers. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. One of these days there may not be a need for ''alternative' approaches to cancer. Until then, look for the answers to the cancer riddle in the growing field of alternatives, because they are obviously not present in our armamentarium of conventional therapies.

http://www.mercola.com/article/cancer/cancer_options.htm

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:10 pm

aprile wrote:

Stem cells in therapuetic use or even in skincare products is not harmful, it's just controversial in many camps.

But the controversy is that because the growth factors in stem cell topicals are supposed to stimulate cell growth, scientists are still undecided on whether dormant cancer cells are also spurred into action to mutate and multiply.
http://www.livescience.com/2547-stem-cells-cancer.html

Of course, there aren't any actual stemcells in these topicals, however, they do contain growth factors which are purported to stimulate cell growth. All of these concerns were raised on the other stemcell threads here.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:18 pm

sister sweets wrote:

In my graduate work one statement stands out for me and that is in medicine everything is an experiment for a very long time.... Well think about leaches... and they used to bleed people due to "humors" thought to cause problems. Today we do chemo and radiation - 25 years from now it could be considered barbaric as Andrew Weil believes...and we could see something so much different. Do we know EVERYTHING today? 20 years ago we probably thought we were tremendously advanced but today we might laugh at the same treatments. We know much more about some things but unfortunately in the US our Physicians are NOT trained in nutritional modalities as a matter of course. They are not taught to be PREVENTIVE in nature- they are designed to be curative in nature so iodine, K2, D3 is not a part of the thought process unless they take a path to be there and make a choice to be there like Dr. Andrew Weil did.

Of course medical science is constantly evolving and advancing. As for chemo being considered barbaric in the future - it is considered to be a very unpleasant treatment now - going through chemo is an ordeal, that is why the scientific community is trying so hard to find a better cure - and I'm sure they will one day and we will look back with pity at those that had to endure it.

But we never know what the future will bring - taking supplements has only been around for 50 years or so. How do you know that in the future it will be found that people did a great deal of harm to themselves from taking too many. Today on the news they announced that there have been 69 deaths world wide from a herbal diet supplement that's been available for 30 years - there are now calls for it to be banned.

There is also cause for concern regarding cancer patients taking supplements:

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/002385-pdf.pdf

free skin care · Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:36 am

I just think there is scaremongering going on here. The medical community aren't all out to do chemo on everyone. They are there to help heal and a lot of them do that job perfecty and with honorability. The idea that this whole establish is corrupt is nothing but a scare tactic. When my dh went through his cancer, the doctors were incredibly supportive, and couldn't have done more for us and well above what their job description asked of them, so the idea that there is an evil bad corrupt medical community out there I'm sorry just doesn't work for me, its not my experience.

Sure there are many different forms of treatment out there, but medical treatment is needed sometimes and I don't think people should feel rubbished for opting to have it or judged because they do.

Sure its developing all the time, what doesn't in this world, but the idea that all medical means is causing cancer or that treatment protocols are wrong is misleading and could cause more harm than good. Biosopy's are a tool for detecting cancer, and do not make it spread every single time - because if so then everyone who had one would be dead and that's clearly not the case!

free skin care · Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:50 am

aprile wrote:

You have FREE medical care, but what does that really do for you?

It means we get the medical care we need, regardless of our financial situation. It means that no child goes without proper care because their parents are poor. It means that the elderly and infirm are guaranteed nursing care when they are at their most vulnerable.

I have the utmost respect for our doctors. Our health care system is not perfect - it definitely has its problems. But I'm proud to live in a society which cares for its population.

free skin care · Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:43 am

Keliu wrote:

aprile wrote:

You have FREE medical care, but what does that really do for you?

It means we get the medical care we need, regardless of our financial situation. It means that no child goes without proper care because their parents are poor. It means that the elderly and infirm are guaranteed nursing care when they are at their most vulnerable.

I have the utmost respect for our doctors. Our health care system is not perfect - it definitely has its problems. But I'm proud to live in a society which cares for its population.

I agree with Keliu 100%. I am in Canada and it is FREE here as well. My husband and I have both had numerous health challenges in the last few years including me being in the ICU for 8 days. Ours doctors are exhaustive in the tests they order and to the lengths they go to to try and help us. We don't have to worry about bankrupting ourselves for the sake of our health. That is what FREE does for me.

free skin care · Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:12 am

Healthcare is never free. If you are in a country where it is part of the system it is paid for by much higher taxes on the working population or companies. Drs and hospitals and healthcare professionals must get paid and it has to come from somewhere.
If you are a person who requires a lot of healthcare it is a major benefit. If you are a very healthy person you are contributing to the care of others - in that you require much less and don't use the resources.

free skin care · Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:07 am

Well in my case, it helped saved my hubby and for that I'm grateful. If it wasn't for them checking and doing a biosopy - we would never have known he had cancer and it would never have been treated. I'm sorry but yes in UK we do have free medical care and I am grateful for it. It has helped me and my family many times.

We're in the UK and so using whats in the US as a guide to whats taking place in the UK is an unfair comparison and quite frankly like you have already said, sometimes if we are in the country that is doing this - we know best!

aprile wrote:

You have FREE medical care, but what does that really do for you? It doesn't really put you in a better position than us because those doctors are going to follow strict medical protocols and not *think outside the box*. When the insurance companies are telling the doctors which pharmaceuticals or treatements they can use, by not covering it, that's a crime. Why do you think there are so many people fighting with insurance companies to have certain treatments or drugs covered? Right now in the U.S., medical marijuana is becoming a hot bed discussion for the treatment of cancer. Mediccal marijuana is a viable treatment and one that does no harm to the patient. Further, it spares the patient having to endure the barbaric treatments of chemo and radiation. However, its still not going to be the *preferrred protocol* because it doesn't cost nearly as much as chemo... In fact, not even close. However, there are more doctors who agree that it could save their patients lives, yet they still have to acquiesce to the system.

Seriously, this is not a witch hunt, this is just telling it like it is, and more importantly, a lively discussion like this should serve as a wake up call to those who are uninformed about how the system *really* works. Yes indeed, the cancer machine. Knowledge is power.

free skin care · Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:24 am

Sadly if you are ill and go to doctors they will not usually give you a prescription for tree, sun, plants or food.

Maybe you just need to find a forum where you can learn about Egyptian herbal treatments? Some of your comments are a little bewildering and I'd love to see how this works for you 10, 20, or even 30 years from now (if you live that long on just fruit and air). In fact we don't really know how well its working for you now, no one has seen what you look like or knows how fit and healthy or unfit and unhealthy you are.

panoslydios wrote:

Its not incorrect cause real medicine comes from the tree,sun,plants and food.So everyone in the field should know about nutrition aka our real medicine.
I wish i knew the herbal treatments of Egyptians.I wouldnt be there on this forum if i did!!!!

free skin care · Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:27 am

Sis in the UK doctors do have training which include nutrition.

This is why I'm against whats being said here about our doctors being biased and only wanting to prescribe chemo etc for cancer, and not wanting to think outside the box. In the UK we do have a good system and its working for many people and saving lives.

sister sweets wrote:

Keliu - again you are not familiar with medicine in the US. Traditional medical model - aka: Western medical curriculum/physician training in the US does NOT include nutritional training or other natural preventive healing type modalities. Do not confuse this with a naturopath. That is very different. Of course one can get a degree in Nutrition - I have one The difficulty is that many people put their faith in a the Western model trained MD in America "thinking" they have knowledge of nutrition and preventive medical modalities when they do not. This is what Aprile is saying.

free skin care · Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:37 am

Just to say if my hubby didn't have a biopsy, we would never have known about his cancer and it would definitely have spread without treatment which is why I'm glad our UK medical system did what it did and tested for it. It in essence saved him from having to deal with this issue later in life and at a larger scale for which I'm grateful for and so the idea of scaring people from having one I have to say I think is wrong. It saved him life without doubt, and it can save others by identifying that they have cancer.

Keliu wrote:

I think a lump in the breast could definitely be considered a medical emergency and it is inappropriate to advise people not to get it checked out by a specialist. Having a biopsy is not a "security blanket" - it is the only way to find out if you have cancer. No-one is in control of their own health - there is absolutely no guarantee that you won't catch an infectious disease, get Parkinson's disease or MS or cancer or have a brain anurism. If you believe you're bullet proof just because you pop vitamin pills, you're deluding yourself.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.