| Conditions & Diseases A - Z | ADD / ADHD | ALS / Lou Gehrig's Disease | Alzheimer's Disease | Cancer |
Cancer: Nutritional Causes, Treatments & Prevention
When faced with the diagnosis of cancer, mainstream treatment options such as chemotherapy, radiation,
or surgery have not changed in several decades. Of those, chemotherapy, radiation, and anti-cancer drugs
unfortunately are established carcinogens in themselves. In addition, immunosuppressive drugs inhibit the
body's own ability to fight cancer cells, and they interfere with natural killer cells to destroy them.
Tamoxifen (Novadex) has been the treatment of choice for breast cancer despite its potential of causing
fatal side effects, and despite the fact that 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, however it has been
implicated with promoting cancer of the liver, and uterine / endometrial cancer, as well as thrombophlebitis,
hypertriglyceridemia, depression, retinal damage, deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), embolus, and cerebrovascular
ischemic events (stroke).
significantly higher when used in post-menopausal women with hormone-sensitive early breast cancer, but
patients with liver or kidney disease have to be carefully monitored as there is a greater risk for bone loss
(and fractures), particularly in the spine.
Herceptin (Trastuzumab)41 is another drug used in the war on cancer, but unlike chemotherapy, which
attacks healthy tissue, Herceptin targets cancer cells only. Unfortunately, Herceptin has a staggering list of
possible side effects, 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.
Chemotherapy is frequently the first choice for treating cancer, although in addition to killing cancer cells,
it can kill or damage healthy cells, and increase the risk of infection, sores or bleeding, heart damage, hair
loss, 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. With chemotherapy the use
of antioxidants is contraindicated because they protect not only healthy cells, but also cancer cells from
the action of chemotherapeutic agents.
For Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that is resistant to chemotherapy, other options include bone marrow / stem
cell transplantation, radiation, 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.
Radiation Therapy either consists of high-energy x-rays aimed at damaging cancer cells, or stopping 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) concen-
trates higher doses of 3-D radiotherapy toward the tumor while reducing the radiation effect to surrounding
healthy tissues.
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, and sterility as result of
radiation to the abdomen and pelvis, - and there may be generalized effects such as fatigue, tissue damage
or scarring, 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 precancerous and cancerous
conditions and involves a controlled treatment cycle of freezing / thawing / refreezing 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.
How successful are Alternative Cancer Treatments and Remedies?
There are 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 Laetrile, Hoxsey therapy,
Essiac, Livingston-Wheeler therapy, Max Gerson therapy, DiBella therapy, Govallo Embryo therapy, Zoetron
therapy, Hydrogen Peroxide, Iscador, CanCell / Cantron, PC-SPES, MGN-3, MTH-68, Hydrazine Sulphate,
714-X, and others, such as IAT (Immuno-Augmentative Therapy) and Antineoplaston therapy.
Non-mainstream-types of treatments or remedies for cancer are frequently considered by those who have
been given little chance for survival through conventional cancer therapy, or they become the preferred
choice of treatment already in the initial stages of cancer by people who simply distrust conventional treat-
ments (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 treatments or intervention whatsoever, but how
many Repeatable Cures have 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 treatments - 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 or
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 likely
the combined or synergistic approach that is superior not only when applied to nutrition, but also 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 or remedies have been studied in the treatment
of cancer (or other medical problems), and forms were used without co-factors, (e.g. Vitamin C without bio-
flavonoids, or Vitamin E and Carotenoids in a single, instead of complexed form), or when ratio conflicts were
created with other interactive nutrients, results were frequently inconclusive or even detrimental.
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 which
surgery, radiation, or drug therapy are known for.
After following patients for over three decades choosing anything from conventional drug therapy, nutritional
therapy, herbal remedies, acupuncture, chiropractic treatments... all the way to doing nothing for various
medical 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 co-
operation among both - the best conventional, and best nutritional practitioners - had the best survival rates!
Comparing tens of thousands of patient profiles since the mid-70's, I have searched for common, nutritional
denominators that would suggest risk factors in the development of various cancers, as well as other medical
conditions. Following are some markers or interactions that have been identified either through intracellular
measurements, or they may have already been documented elsewhere.
Nutritional Relationships or Risk Factors with Cancer:
high levels (breast, stomach, lung, prostate, pancreatic cancer) [inhibits Vit D]
low levels (colon, left ovarian, left testicular, prostate cancer) [high Zn/Ca ratio]
high levels (bladder, * colorectal, breast, esophageal cancer)
low levels (right ovarian, right testicular, * thymus gland cancer)
high levels (most cancers) - due to copper being an important co-factor for
angiogenesis (new blood vessel formation in tumors)
low levels (colon cancer)
high levels (* bone, liver, colorectal cancer)
low levels (* lung, liver, gastric, colon, brain cancer, sarcomas, lymphomas,
leukemia)
low levels (breast, uterine, ovarian, prostate [estrogen receptor-positive] cancers
high levels (liver, breast cancer)
low levels (left breast, stomach, esophageal cancer)
high levels (breast, stomach, pancreatic cancer)
low levels (right ovarian, right testicular, * thymus gland cancer)
high levels (liver, breast, prostate cancer) [estrogen receptor-positive cancers]
low levels (right breast, stomach cancer) [estrogen receptor-negative cancers]
low levels (esophageal, stomach, * breast cancer)
high levels (prostate, uterine cancer)
low levels (bone, kidney, pancreatic, lymph cancer)
high levels (right ovarian, right testicular, bladder cancer [less common])
low levels (breast, * bladder cancer [more common])
low levels (lung, skin, prostate, liver, colorectal, breast cancer)
low levels (pancreatic cancer)
high levels (* stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer [with H. Pylori involvement])
low levels (* breast cancer)
high levels (left ovarian, left testicular, colon, prostate cancer [less common])
low levels (esophageal, breast, cervical, prostate cancer [more common])
low levels (lung, breast, bladder, leukemia - most cancers)
low levels (breast, colorectal cancer)
low levels (* breast cancer)
high levels (prostate cancer), (acute myeloblastic leukemia [one case])
low levels (pancreatic cancer - [Biotin is not indicated with H. Pylori involvement])
low levels (esophageal, stomach, lung, cervical, colorectal, * prostate cancer
[pancreatic cancer with H. Pylori involvement])
low levels (colon, prostate, breast, lung, pancreatic, skin, ovarian, lymph cancer)
high levels (* lung, pancreatic cancer)
low levels (liver, lung, breast, prostate, colorectal - most cancers)
low levels (colon, breast, lung, pancreatic cancer)
high levels (* breast, prostate cancer), (lung, colon cancer [with high Vit B12])
low levels (prostate, breast, lung, ovarian, uterine cancer)
high intake of synthetic form (lung cancer, i.e. with smokers)
low levels (* breast, cervical, pancreatic, prostate cancer)
low levels (* breast, prostate cancer)
low levels [i.e. trypsin / chymotrypsin] (pancreatic cancer, and most cancers)
high intake (liver, colorectal, oral, esophageal, breast, pancreatic, prostate
* stomach cancer)
high intake (prostate, ovarian, breast cancer)
(* colorectal, bladder, stomach, prostate, breast cancer)
high intake (bladder cancer)
(liver cancer, estrogen receptor-positive cancers)
Cancer Preventive / Therapeutic Treatment Remedies:
(rhabdomyosarcoma, * prostate, breast, colon, liver cancer, leukemia)
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, wormwood (artemisia annua), chaparral, * shark cartilage,
allium-containing sources - garlic, onions, leeks, chives,
green tea, ginger, licorice, turmeric / curcumin, fiber, chlorophyll,
antioxidants, flavonoids, resveratrol, 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 )
Calcium:
Chlorine:
Chromium:
Copper:
Fluorine:
Germanium:
Iodine:
Iron (ferritin):
Magnesium:
Manganese:
Molybdenum:
Protein /
Phosphorus:
Potassium:
Selenium:
Sodium:
Vanadium:
Zinc:
Vitamin A:
Vitamin B6:
Vitamin B12:
Biotin:
Vitamin C:
Vitamin D:
Vitamin E:
Folate / Folic acid:
Carotenoids:
Beta Carotene:
Co-Enzyme Q10:
Melatonin:
Pancreatic /
Digestive Enzymes:
Alcohol:
Dairy products:
Heterocyclic
amines (HCAs):
L-Tryptophan:
Mycotoxins (mold):
IP6 - Inositol
Hexaphosphate:
Herbs / Misc:,
General:
The Stomach Acid Connection
Of all the nutritional risk indicators documented above and elsewhere, low stomach acid production is a
consistent and reliable 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 to note that an infection with the bacteria Helicobacter Pylori not only lowers stomach acid, but
it is also a known risk factor in the development of stomach cancer and pancreatic cancer.
Esophageal Cancer can develop as a result of acid reflux, where acid causes a corrosive action on the
esophagus, which lacks the protective mucous coating of the stomach. This is independent of the amount
of acid the stomach produces. Since H. Pylori tends to lowers stomach acid levels, it actually reduces the
risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma (cancer of the esophagus), 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 maintain a
specific nutritional profile on purpose, which is later matched to actual cancer development. However, as
patients become cancer statistics, they contribute to the ever increasing data pool confirming a low-acid
cancer risk association.
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 stomach
acid in almost 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.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Copyright © 2000-2012 Acu-Cell Disorders: Cancer
Copyright © 2000-2012 Acu-Cell Disorders: Cancer
Acu-Cell Disorders
Cancer
Most patients when visiting the average GP for "heartburn" end up with a prescription for acid-lowering drugs,
even though in most cases, their acid levels are below-normal. This may be due to a H. Pylori infection, low
Vitamin D levels, or a variety of other nutritional factors, such as high calcium or magnesium, corresponding
When checking medical records, excessive manganese or iron levels may have also shown up as factors for
cancer development subsequent to the use of drugs that affected liver chemistry, such as Tylenol, estrogen
therapy, proton pump inhibitors (Nexium), cholesterol-lowering (statin) drugs, antifungal drugs, alcohol, viral
All these can result in higher manganese or excessive iron storage, regardless of actual manganese or iron
consumption, although by the time cancer develops (usually many years later), patients don't necessarily
exhibit excessive liver storage of these elements any longer. In fact, iron or manganese levels may have
dropped to below normal (frequently corresponding to perimenopausal or postmenopausal age ranges), along
with reduced stomach acid levels. High manganese levels coincide with estrogen receptor-positive, and
low manganese levels coincide with estrogen receptor-negative cancers.
From many years of following patients with a similar medical history, it appears that if stomach acid levels
are normalized in time (along with liver functions), patients remain largely cancer-free. This is also helpful
after cancer has developed, where following successful therapy, cancer is more likely to stay in remission.
Whether triggered by H. Pylori infections (see "H. Pylori and low Stomach Acid" for details), or adverse drug,
nutritional, or lifestyle factors -- low stomach acid is frequently followed by inadequate pancreatic enzyme
production (i.e. trypsin or chymotrypsin), which is believed to be another potential risk factor with 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. ¤
Home Sitemap Links & Downloads Flu Remedies The Clinical Research Resource for Cellular Nutrition & Trace Mineral Analysis
Updated: 15. Jan. 2012