Cancer: Nutritional causes, prevention, therapies & remedies

______________________________________________________________________________

CANCER: Nutritional Causes, Prevention and Therapies

When faced with the diagnosis of cancer, mainstream treatment options such as surgery, radiation,

or chemotherapy have not changed in several decades. Of those, radiation, chemotherapy, and anti-
cancer drugs unfortunately can either contribute to or cause more cancer, and/or they are established
carcinogens in themselves. In addition, immunosuppressive chemicals or drugs also inhibit the body's
own ability to fight cancer cells that are formed every day in the body, and they interfere with natural
killer cells to destroy them.

The antiestrogen drug Tamoxifen (Novadex) has long been the treatment of choice for breast cancer
despite its potential of causing fatal side effects, and despite the fact that over an average 40 month
time period, the increase in invasive breast cancer of patients who took tamoxifen was only 0.6% less
compared to those patients who did not take the drug. Only women on hormone replacement therapy
(HRT) benefited more from tamoxifen. Numerous studies have implicated tamoxifen with promoting
cancer of the liver, or uterine / endometrial cancer. As a result, the World Health Organization (WHO)

in 1996 formally designating tamoxifen as a human carcinogen.

Additional risk factors from tamoxifen use include hypertriglyceridemia, depression, thrombophlebitis,

embolus, deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), cerebrovascular ischemic events (stroke), and retinal damage.

In comparison, other antineoplastic agents / aromatase inhibitors such as Aromasin (Exemestane),

Femara (Letrozole), or Arimidex (Anastrozole) had a response rate that was significantly higher when

used in post-menopausal women with hormone-sensitive early breast cancer. However, patients with
liver or kidney disease have to be carefully monitored when on these drugs (there may be significant

changes in potassium, sodium, creatinine and phosphate levels), and there is a greater risk for bone

loss (and fractures), particularly in the spine.

Herceptin (Trastuzumab) has become another addition to the arsenal of drugs used in the war on
cancer, but unlike chemotherapy, which attacks healthy tissue, Herceptin targets cancer cells only.

According to cancer specialists, this revolutionary cancer therapy is the "biggest breakthrough in a

decade" for women with a genetic mutation that has them produce too much of the protein HER-2,

which results in more aggressive, faster-growing (breast) cancers. Preliminary study results have
shown that when combined with chemotherapy, Herceptin may half the risk of recurrence of these

cancers compared to patients receiving chemotherapy alone.

Unfortunately, Herceptin is less of a "breakthrough" when considering its price tag and a staggering

list of possible side effects, many of which can be very serious, or even deadly. Among them are skin

ulceration, anemia, leukemia, arrhythmia, ventricular dysfunction and congestive heart failure, hepatitis,

hypothyroidism, convulsion, asthma, intestinal obstruction, kidney failure, bone necrosis, pancreatitis,

deafness, high fever, cervical cancer and death - just to mention a few, and intense pain at the cancer

site after the administration of a larger dose of the drug.

While some patients view side effects as being less of a dilemma than dying from the actual cancer,

other patients do not consider the resulting poor quality of life a worthwhile trade-off just to extend their
lives, particularly since Herceptin therapy is not a short-term solution, but requires ongoing, regular
treatments.

Now that the drug has been in use long enough, and had a chance to prove itself to be the supposed
"cancer cure" it was claimed to be, many initially hopeful patients are already finding out the hard way

that when headlines sound too good to be true, they usually are.

Chemotherapy is frequently the first choice for treating cancer, although in addition to killing cancer

cells, it can kill or damage healthy cells, including blood cells and cells lining the intestinal tract and hair

follicles as well. This can result in side effects such as an increased risk of infection, sores or bleeding,

hair loss, heart damage, anemia, nausea, and vomiting.

Hodgkin's lymphoma and some forms of leukemia have been shown to respond especially well to

chemotherapy with a close to 100% remission rate. For Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that is resistant to
chemotherapy, other options include radiation, bone marrow / stem cell transplantation, and in some
cases immunotherapy, where antibodies target cancer cells for destruction, or the cancer cells are

killed through an attached toxin or radioactive isotope.

The success rate of several dozen drugs used for chemotherapy to help with advanced and more

aggressive types of cancer has been less than 10%, so it is no surprise that cancer - along with heart

disease - has remained the top killer in most developed countries. Raising the odds of chemotherapy

being more effective in the treatment of cancer, genetic markers in tumor tissue have been identified

to help predict which tumors will respond best to specific types of chemotherapy. This allows to predict

the success rate of chemotherapy ahead of time by analyzing the levels of various enzymes that the

cancer cells produce, which varies from one patient to another.

This may also lessen the possibility of renal complications following the administration of excessive

doses of chemotherapy. If chemotherapy is administered, the use of antioxidants is contraindicated
because they protect not only healthy cells, but also cancer cells from the action of chemotherapeutic
agents.

Radiation Therapy either consists of high-energy x-rays aimed at damaging cancer cells or to stop
their growth, or through the use of brachytherapy, where radioactive seeds are implanted at the tumor
site to deliver a high dose of radiation directly to the tumor. IMRT (intensity modulated radiation
therapy) concentrates higher doses of 3-D radiotherapy toward the tumor while reducing the radiation

effect to the surrounding healthy tissue. This substantially increases local tumor control, while reducing

complications of normal surrounding tissue.

Side effects from radiation therapy generally involve the areas treated, i.e. cough, shortness of breath,

sore throat, or problems swallowing from radiation directed at the neck and chest areas; tingling or

numbness of the back or extremities from radiation of the spine; diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, or sterility

as result of radiation to the abdomen and pelvis, and there may be generalized effects such as tissue

damage / scarring, fatigue, red or dry skin in the treated area. Radiation therapy may increase the

susceptibility to other cancers, and it is associated with an up to 80% failure rate.

Cryoablation / Cryosurgery is an alternate option to radiotherapy for pre-cancerous and cancerous

conditions and involves a controlled treatment cycle of freezing / thawing / re-freezing a tumor. It has

been primarily used to treat cervical neoplasias, skin and prostate cancer, but is now offered for other

types of cancer (liver, kidney, pancreas...) as well, provided the tumor has not spread to lymph nodes

or other parts of the body (metastasis). There are usually fewer side effects compared to other cancer

treatments such as chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation, and they are limited to localized tissue areas

and may be temporary. Cryosurgery may also be a treatment option for cancers that are considered

inoperable, or do not respond to standard therapies.

How successful are Alternative Cancer Treatments?

There are certainly plenty of exotic labels promoting "cancer cures" and there is no shortage of mystic

healers who claim to have "successfully healed thousands of cancer patients..."

They include the herbal formulation Essiac, Laetrile, Hoxsey Therapy, Livingston-Wheeler therapy,

Max Gerson therapy, DiBella therapy, Govallo Embryo therapy, Zoetron therapy, Hydrogen Peroxide,
Iscador, CanCell / Cantron, PC-SPES, MGN-3, 714-X, MTH-68, Hydrazine Sulphate, and others such

as IAT (Immuno-Augmentative Therapy) and Antineoplaston therapy.

Non-mainstream-types of therapies for cancer are frequently considered by those who have been

given little chance for survival through conventional cancer treatments, or they become the preferred

choice of treatment already in the initial stages of cancer by people who simply distrust conventional

treatments (as a result of negative experiences), or they have previously at some point in their lives
made a choice for alternative or holistic medicine instead.

There is no doubt that there have been "cures" of cancer over the years as a result of non-mainstream

therapies, just like there have been cures through the use of orthodox medicine. There have also been

documented remissions of cancer attributed to visualization (by willing the tumor to dissolve), or prayer,

and some cancers have simply disappeared without any intervention whatsoever, but how many cures

have realistically resulted from any of the alternative therapies?

Only conventional medicine has any type of track record that hints of a cure rate with any particular

therapy, and although the credibility of its "cancer cure" statistics may be suspect, holistic treatments

don't have much of any statistical records at all.

In its defense and to be realistic, alternative medicine just doesn't have the resources and research
money to conduct as elaborate studies compared to what the orthodox medical establishment can

afford. At the same time, there is no doubt that an inexpensive cancer treatment would not be very

welcome by a profit-driven drug cartel.

When following celebrity cases in the news who had their cancers treated by either orthodox medicine,

or had gone "South of the border" for alternative or holistic therapy - and where they had no financial

restrictions to seek out the finest treatments - who enjoyed the best success rate?

The answer is a disappointing "Neither One!"

It seems that in the majority of cases, cancer takes its course, and most therapies at best simply delay
the inevitable, with only the less aggressive or non-genetically driven types of cancers successfully
going into remission, in contrast to the big killers which are rarely contained past the five-year survival

mark, no matter how "famous" the hospital or oncologist consulted.

Perhaps the psychological response to a cancer verdict can be a decisive factor in survival, where

family / community support and a change in lifestyle, good genetic background, spiritual convictions,

etc., may all contribute to any type of treatment chosen having a better chance of success. In other

words, it is the combined or synergistic approach that is superior not only when applied to nutrition,

but also likely when faced with a killer disease and subsequent mortality - compared to each approach

having a greater potential of failing to achieve remission when applied by itself.

For the same reason, when large amounts of single nutrients have been studied in the treatment of

cancer (or other medical problems), and some forms were used either outside of their complexed
environment, without co-factors, or when ratio conflicts were created with other interactive nutrients,
results were frequently inconclusive or even detrimental.

Vitamin C is a good example of having even been linked to an increase in DNA damage according

to some studies (i.e. becoming a pro-oxidant), when - instead of utilizing a Vitamin C Complex that

includes bioflavonoids - very high doses of ascorbic acid alone were used. Such research also tends
to ignore the interaction of Vitamin C with copper, zinc, manganese, iron, and specifically nickel, which

is an important indicator for ratio conflicts with Vitamin E, another interactive antioxidant. (see also

Acu-Cell "Vitamin C Supplementation" and "Nickel & Cobalt").

The same conclusions have also been reached following the use of high amounts of single, synthetic

versions of nutrients - beta carotene being one example - instead of utilizing complexed carotenoids.

If cancer patient X would have had orthodox therapy, and not seen a holistic practitioner,

he would still be alive.

This is a common claim by the orthodox medical establishment - not just for cancer, but most other

medical conditions as well - that seeing a non-mainstream practitioner will delay "proper" treatments.

While that point is certainly justified with certain "fringe" alternative therapies, the same can be said of

cancer patients not surviving because of conventional medicine, where the therapy killed the patient,

and not the cancer.

It stands to reason that if a nutritional approach is successful, then a patient is automatically spared

the side effects or after effects which are frequently encountered following conventional treatments.

The odds of extending a patient's life are obviously much better by treating the cause and not using
invasive therapy, being oftentimes possible with nutritional intervention - in contrast to conventional
medicine, which is usually not equipped to do so. On the other hand, if a problem cannot be resolved
nutritionally, then a symptomatic mainstream approach can always be followed, along with all the
potential short and long-term problems surgery, radiation, or drug therapy are known for.

After following patients for almost three decades choosing anything from conventional drug therapy,

herbal remedies, acupuncture, chiropractic treatments, nutritional therapy...all the way to doing nothing

for their various conditions, I have like everyone else, seen botched cases making the news on both,

the alternative and orthodox side of medicine. A patient certainly does have the responsibility to do

the same research into the reputation and qualifications of complementary practitioners as should be

done for conventional doctors, including getting a second or third opinion if necessary.

In the end, those patients who had access to, and cooperation among both - the best conventional,

and best nutritional practitioners - had the best survival rates!

By comparing tens of thousands of patient profiles since the mid-70's, I tried to come up with common,

nutritional denominators that would suggest risk factors in the development of cancer (as well as other

conditions). Following are some markers or interactions that have been identified either through intra-

cellular measurements, or they may have already been documented elsewhere.

Nutritional relationships or risk factors with Cancer:

Calcium:

high levels (breast, stomach, lung, prostate, pancreatic cancer) [inhibits Vit D]

low levels (colon, left ovarian, left testicular, prostate cancer) [high Zn/Ca ratio]

Chlorine:

high levels (bladder, * colorectal, breast, esophageal cancer)

Chromium:

low levels (right ovarian, right testicular, * thymus gland cancer)

Copper:

high levels (most cancers) - due to copper being an important co-factor for

angiogenesis (new blood vessel formation in tumors)

low levels (colon cancer)

Fluorine:

high levels (* bone, liver, colorectal cancer)

Germanium:

low levels (* lung, liver, gastric, colon, brain cancer, sarcomas, lymphomas,

leukemia)

Iodine:

low levels (breast cancer)

Iron (ferritin):

high levels (liver, breast cancer)

low levels (left breast, stomach, esophageal cancer)

Magnesium:

high levels (breast, stomach, pancreatic cancer)

low levels (right ovarian, right testicular, * thymus gland cancer)

Manganese:

high levels (liver, breast, prostate cancer) [estrogen receptor-positive cancers]

low levels (right breast, stomach cancer) [estrogen receptor-negative cancers]

Molybdenum:

low levels (esophageal, stomach, * breast cancer)

Protein /

Phosphorus:

high levels (prostate, uterine cancer)

low levels (bone, kidney, pancreatic, lymph cancer)

Potassium:

high levels (right ovarian, right testicular, bladder cancer [less common])

low levels (breast, * bladder cancer [more common])

Selenium:

low levels (lung, skin, prostate, liver, colorectal, breast cancer)

Sodium:

low levels (pancreatic cancer)

high levels (* stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer [with H. Pylori involvement])

Vanadium:

low levels (* breast cancer)

Zinc:

high levels (left ovarian, left testicular, colon, prostate cancer [less common])

low levels (esophageal, breast, cervical, prostate cancer [more common])

Vitamin A:

low levels (lung, breast, bladder, leukemia - most cancers)

Vitamin B6:

low levels (breast, colorectal cancer)

Vitamin B12:

low levels (* breast cancer)

high levels (prostate cancer), (acute myeloblastic leukemia [one case])

Biotin:

low levels (pancreatic cancer - [Biotin is not indicated with H. Pylori involvement])

Vitamin C:

low levels (esophageal, stomach, lung, cervical, colorectal, * prostate cancer

[pancreatic cancer with H. Pylori involvement])

Vitamin D:

low levels (colon, prostate, breast, lung, pancreatic, skin, ovarian, lymph cancer)

Vitamin E:

low levels (liver, breast, prostate, colorectal - most cancers)

Folate / Folic acid:

low levels (colon, breast, lung, pancreatic cancer)

high levels (* breast, prostate cancer), (lung, colon cancer [with high Vit B12])

Carotenoids:

low levels (prostate, breast, lung, ovarian, uterine cancer)

Co-Enzyme Q10:

low levels (* breast, cervical, pancreatic, prostate cancer)

Melatonin:

low levels (* breast, prostate cancer)

Pancreatic /

Digestive Enzymes:

low levels [i.e. trypsin / chymotrypsin] (pancreatic cancer, and most cancers)

Alcohol:

high intake (liver, colorectal, oral, esophageal, breast, pancreatic, prostate

* stomach cancer)

Beta Carotene:

high intake of synthetic form (lung cancer, i.e. with smokers)

Dairy products:

high intake (prostate, ovarian, breast cancer)

Heterocyclic

amines (HCAs):

(* colorectal, bladder, stomach, prostate, breast cancer)

L-Tryptophan:

high intake (bladder cancer)

Mycotoxins (mold):

(liver cancer, estrogen receptor-positive cancers)

Cancer preventive / therapeutic considerations:

IP6 - Inositol

Hexaphosphate:

(rhabdomyosarcoma, * prostate, breast, colon, liver cancer, leukemia)

Herbs / Misc:

shiitake mushroom, cat's claw, pau d'arco, echinacea, yellow dock, mistletoe,

celandine, red clover, plantain, Chinese mint (scutellaria barbata), milk thistle,

myrrh, graviola, thuja, chaparral, * shark cartilage,

General:

cruciferous vegetables - Brussels sprouts, cabbage, broccoli, Sulforaphane,

allium-containing sources - garlic, onions, leeks, chives,

green tea, ginger, licorice, turmeric, fiber, chlorophyll,

antioxidants, flavonoids, ellagic acid, flax seed, essential fatty acids (EFAs),

calorie restriction,

raising blood pH (cesium / alkaline therapy),

lowering cellular pH (by raising P/Na ratio).

( * = preliminary research data, or animal data / unconfirmed for humans)

______________________________________________________________________________

Cancer Prevention

Of all the nutritional risk indicators documented above and elsewhere, low stomach acid production
is a most consistent and reliable high risk marker in the development of major types of malignancies,
which includes cancer of the stomach, esophagus, breasts, brain, lymph, lungs, ovaries, testis,
pancreas, and others.

It is interesting that an infection with the bacteria Helicobacter Pylori not only lowers acid production,

but it is also a risk factor in the development of stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, and possibly other

malignant tumors. (see also Acu-Cell "H. Pylori").

Esophageal Cancer can also develop as a result of acid reflux, where acid causes a corrosive action
on the esophagus, which lacks the protective mucus coating of the stomach. This is independent of the

amount of acid the stomach produces. In such a case, preventative / corrective measures are required

which include a lowering of stomach acid until the problem is resolved. If the reduced acid following

acid-lowering therapy causes bloating or other digestive complaints, Bromelain can be supplemented

for its anti-inflammatory action, and to help with digestion.

Since H. Pylori tends to lower stomach acid levels, it actually reduces the risk of developing one form
of cancer (esophageal adenocarcinoma) that may have otherwise resulted from chronic esophageal
reflux, or Barrett's esophagus (Barrett's syndrome), but as mentioned above, it increases the risk of
developing gastric cancers and esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma.

Because of ethical considerations, it is not possible to do human research by having subjects on
purpose maintain a specific nutritional profile, which is later matched to actual cancer development.

However, even with the increasing evidence of a relationship between low acid production and cancer

development, a good number of patients still don't follow preventive recommendations when told of the

implications that have surfaced regarding cancer risks.

As these patients become cancer statistics, they contribute to the ever increasing data pool confirming

a low acid-cancer association. With several dozen nutritional factors - including stomach acid levels -

being assessed at every patient visit with every patient, the nutritional profiles of any of these patients

can be cross-referenced to those of other patients under the same circumstances to arrive at common

denominators, not only for cancer, but also any of a large number of other disorders whose causes

have thus far eluded mainstream clinical research.

Since stomach acid levels are measured separately in the upper and lower portion of the stomach,

it has become obvious that in addition to the involvement of acid levels to various medical problems,

there is also a correspondence to the sidedness of a condition, relative to low acid production in

the upper or lower half of the stomach. For instance, left-sided breast cancer corresponds to upper

stomach acid levels being low, and right-sided breast cancer corresponds to lower stomach acid
levels being low.

When following a large number of patients with low stomach acid, an unusually high rate of cancer

emerges, and when looking at stomach acid levels of diagnosed cancer patients, there is evidence

of low acid in every single case of specific (above-mentioned) types of cancer. In addition, the

sidedness of these cancers corresponding to acid levels of the lower or upper portion of the stomach

clearly heightens the odds of the association.

Most patients when visiting the average GP for "heartburn" end up with a prescription for acid-lowering

medications, even though in the majority of cases, their acid levels are below-normal. This may be due
to H.Pylori infection, low levels of Vitamin D, or a variety of other factors, such as low manganese
and/or high magnesium, or low iron, and/or high calcium, corresponding to the respective part of the
stomach. (see also Acu-Cell Nutrition "Calcium & Magnesium").

When checking medical records in the event of cancer development, excessive manganese and/or

iron (ferritin) levels may have set the stage for cancer perhaps as much as 10 or 20 years earlier,

subsequent to the use of drugs that affected liver chemistry, such as acetaminophen (Tylenol), alcohol,

proton pump inhibitors (Nexium), cholesterol-lowering (statin) drugs, anti-fungal medications, estrogen,

viral infections (hepatitis), and many other factors. (see also Acu-Cell Nutrition "Iron & Manganese"

for a more complete list).

All these can result in higher manganese (or excessive iron) storage, regardless of actual manganese
or iron consumption. However, by the time cancer develops, many patients don't exhibit liver storage
of these elements any longer. In fact, levels may have dropped significantly below normal (frequently
corresponding to perimenopausal or postmenopausal age ranges), along with reduced stomach acid
levels. High and low manganese levels also tend to coincide with estrogen receptor-positive and
estrogen receptor-negative cancers.

From many years of following patients with a similar history, it appears that if stomach acid levels

are normalized in time (along with liver functions), these same patients remain largely cancer-free.

That approach is also helpful after cancer has developed, where after successful therapy, cancer is

more likely to stay in remission.

From a technical perspective, it is not low stomach acid in itself that is a factor in the development of
cancer, but rather the faulty regulatory aspect that controls stomach acid production, which is frequently

followed by inadequate pancreatic enzyme production. Common treatments consist of supplementing

acid-raising, and digestive aids such as Glutamic Acid, Betaine, and Pepsin - to help increase and
restore natural stomach acid production again, while the addition of Pancreatic Enzymes (i.e. trypsin

or chymotrypsin) can be an equally important nutritional consideration in the prevention, or as adjunct
therapy with many types of cancer.

While there are certainly many elements involved and responsible in the development of cancer - other
than those corresponding to stomach acid levels - there is also an unquestionable association to acid

production that has a valid basis in the prevention of many common types of cancer. ¤

_____________________________________________________________________________

Acu-Cell Disorders: Cancer

| Eat Right 4 Your Type / Blood Type Diet | Multi-Level-Marketing / MLM Products & Coral Calcium | Sterols, Sterolins & Beta-Sitosterol |

| Vegan / Vegetarian / Vegetarianism | Simple, Refined & Complex Sugar, Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load & Satiety Index | Cocoa & Chocolate |