_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ | Conditions & Diseases A - Z | ADD / ADHD | ALS / Lou Gehrig's Disease | Alzheimer's Disease | Cancer | | Helicobacter Pylori | Migraine Headaches | Hypoglycemia | Muscle Spasms / Cramps | Osteoporosis | Prostatitis | _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cancer: Nutritional Causes, Prevention & Therapies 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 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, deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), embolus, cerebrovascular ischemic events (stroke), and retinal damage. 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 see 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, 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 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 docu- mented 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 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 have been studied in the treatment of cancer (or other medical problems), and some forms were used outside of their complexed environment, without co-factors, (e.g. Vitamin C, Vit E, & Carotenoids), 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 surgery, radiation, or drug therapy are known for. After following patients for over three decades choosing anything from conventional drug therapy, herbal remedies, acupuncture, chiropractic treatments, nutritional therapy... 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 cooperation among both - the best conventional, and best nutritional practitioners - had the best survival _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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: 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 : Co-Enzyme Q10 : Melatonin : Pancreatic / Digestive Enzymes : low levels [i.e. trypsin / chymotrypsin] (pancreatic cancer, and most cancers) Alcohol : Beta Carotene : Dairy products : Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) : L-Tryptophan : Mycotoxins (mold) : Cancer preventive / therapeutic considerations : IP6 - Inositol Hexaphosphate : Herbs / Misc : General : Sulforaphane , _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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 risk 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 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 stomach 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 drugs, even though in most cases, their acid levels are below-normal. This may be due to a 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 "Calcium & Magnesium "). When checking medical records in the event of cancer development, excessive manganese (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 Tylenol, alcohol, proton pump inhibitors (Nexium), viral infections Acu-Cell "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 excessive (liver) storage of these elements any longer. In fact, levels may have dropped significantly to below normal (frequently corre- sponding 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 history, it appears that if stomach acid levels are normal- ized 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. ¤
___________________________________________________________________________________ Copyright © 2000-2010 Ronald Roth
Acu-Cell.com provides information only. It does not sell any products or services, and it cannot give advice on any products, services, or "PRIVACY POLICY & DISCLAIMER."
