According to the conventional wisdom of mainstream medicine, the world's leading health practitioners in alternative, complementary and integrative medicine have it all wrong and are misinforming millions in practice and on the internet with a barrage of myths and misconceptions they claim are causing more harm to cancer patients. Could this initiative to sway opinion by leading cancer authorities possibly, just possibly be related to the revolution that is happening around the world--highlighting the dangers and ineffectiveness of toxic chemotherapy and radiation, bringing cancer cures such as cannabis to the forefront, or the emerging mass markets now creating awareness on the reality of our food and the consequences of the cancer industry itself?
The Rise In All Types of Cancers Are Due To Our Modern Society Diets, Lifestyles and Environment
Why The Cancer Industry Claims This Is a Myth
The claim is that our genes are responsible, combined with the fact that people are living long enough now to develop cancer. It's because of our success in tackling infectious diseases and malnutrition that we now get cancer. It's perfectly normal for DNA damage in our cells to build up as we age, and such damage can lead to cancer developing. Cancer has existed as long as humans have.
The only reason that people around the world today believe that our ancestors did not live past 100 years is because the official data has been sparse. There are very few records that show (officially) the age of our ancestors before then 18th century, but there is a reasonable amount of evidence suggesting there were many people living hundreds of years in prehistory and beyond.
In all the skeletons collected in the history of paleoanthropology, scientists have only been able to identify a mere 200 possible cancer sightings dating to prehistoric times, and these identifications are far from certain. Despite the numbers, when you look at the remains, it seems to indicate that malignancies were a "striking rarity" in ancient times, but that evidence is hardly conclusive. We just don't know for sure, so to use any type of argument that cancer existed or did not exist to any extent in prehistory involves making a great deal of assumptions.
So let's just focus on what has transpired in the last century alone. According to the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, from the early 1900s alone up to an including 2011, there was a greater than 3 fold increase in cancer death rates.
According to a 2013 featured report compiled by the American Cancer Society and other government and cancer advocacy groups, progress has been made in the “war on cancer.” But what kind of progress? Declining mortality rates are not due to decreases in incidence. More people are getting cancer, but they're staying alive longer. What the cancer industry does not point out is that the trends clearly show that we haven't eliminated cancer to any extent, but we have managed to be able to diagnose it and treat it and thus profit from the actual disease itself.
People globally are living longer but chronic debilitating conditions are becoming more prevalent.
Diagnosis and treatment are the money makers in this industry. Actual prevention is not. So when it comes to prevention, conventional medicine has stuck its head in the sand.
Overall, cancer deaths began dropping in the 1990's, with death rates declining by 1.8 percent for men and 1.4 percent for women between the years 2000-2009, according to the featured report. Children's death rates from cancer are also declining at a pace of 1.8 percent per year, although incidence is still rising by about 0.5 percent annually.
Other cancers are also still on the rise though, including liver and pancreatic cancer and melanoma (among men).
A 2008 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science demonstrated how nutrition alone can have a tremendous impact not only on prevention, but even on the treatment of cancer once you've been diagnosed.
This type of information is never emphasized by the medical community because they do not believe cancer can be treated without either cutting, poisoning or burning cancerous tumors.
Super-foods and Herbs Can Prevent Cancer
Why The Cancer Industry Claims This Is a Myth
The claim is that specific fruits and vegetables you choose don't really matter. There's no such thing as a 'super-food' or medicinally powerful herb and any assertion has no scientific basis.
This one is just embarrassing for them. While there is not one super-food or herb that may cure all cancers, to suggest that super-foods don't exist or that herbs are not medicinally powerful is reaching deep in the pits of ignorance. In fact, there is so much evidence that super-foods exist and have anti-cancer properties, that any claims suggesting the opposite are a good measure of where the credibility lies among many of these industry quacks that make such preposterous statements.
As of the date of this article, The American Cancer Society (ACS) appears to have removed references to "super foods" or "super-foods" off of their website. Yet, several authors have written extensively about previous recommendations of the ACS, specifically regarding the potential of super-foods to prevent cancer. Northridge Hospital Medical Center lists several super foods using the ACS as a source. Calorielab.com has posted a super food infographic also using ACS as a source. But information on super-foods on the ACS website does not appear to exist.
Cancer Research UK also discredits and discourages the use of super-foods On this page it states "you shouldn't rely on so-called super-foods to reduce the risk of cancer," and that super-foods "are unlikely to give you added health benefits over and above what you would get from eating a varied and healthy diet."
One irritating problem that confuses the public is that most dietitians have no foundation of practical knowledge in nutrition. They propagate mainstream opinion on the validity of the food pyramid--that bread, cereal and grains should be the mainstay of our diets and that fruits and vegetables are all equal. Most dietitians I know don't use the term super-food because they're not taught what super-foods are in school. The only thing they are taught is that "super-foods" are non-medical terms popularized in the media to promote unsupported health-promoting properties in foods.
A super-food can be summed up as any multi-tasking food with higher than average concentrations of disease-fighting nutrients, which are usually in abundance among the antioxidant and phytonutrient rich profiles. Some suggest they are also low in calories but that does not always apply to all super-foods
Some super-foods like blueberries just stand out above the rest. Out of Over 400 Compounds Analyzed, Red Grapes and Blueberries Are Tops In Boosting Immunity.
Even WebMD.com, a very pro mainstream medical website lists 10 Everday Super Foods. Here they list foods such as broccoli, berries, quinoa, beans, nuts, eggs and others which few can den are very nutrient dense foods with anti-cancer properties.
It's not necessary, however, to spend any large sums of money for heavily promoted super-foods such as noni, acai, mangosteen and other juices in an attempt to prevent cancer. The top six foods with the highest antioxidant values on the ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) scale are cheaper and more readily available than the more expensive alternatives and they all are proven to prevent cancer. They include cloves, sumac, cinnamon, sorghum, oregano and turmeric.
For example extracts of black, red, and white sorghums had strong antiproliferative activity against human cancer cells.
Studies on animals with lung and skin cancers show that eugenol in cloves can stop cancer cells from multiplying. Clove oil extract was found in one study to have maximal cytotoxic activity on cancer cells.
In fact there are 17 herbs and spices which in their own right are considered super-foods, and have been scientifically proven to prevent and treat cancer.
Cannabis is one of the most powerful healing plants in the world and it makes cancer essentially disappear. Cancer societies would certainly like cannabis to disappear because there is so much evidence that it prevents cancer. There are dozens of studies which prove cannabis cures cancer. A quick search on Pubmed for "cannabinoid" will yield almost 18,000 results.
The reason cancer societies are now turning their heads to the power of super-foods and herbs is because they work. So they must try and sway opinion in an attempt to convince millions who are now converting back to nature to prevent and cure disease.
Acidic Diets Cause Cancer
Why The Cancer Industry Claims This Is a Myth
This is biological nonsense according to the cancer industry. The pH of the blood is tightly regulated by the kidneys within a very narrow and perfectly healthy range. It can't be changed for any meaningful amount of time by what you eat. There's no evidence to prove that diet can manipulate whole body pH, or that it has an impact on cancer.
Part of the problem with this notion is that there has been a lot of misinformation spread around by so-called health gurus in trade shows attempting to convince people that you can make dramatic shifts in the pH of your body through foods and alkaline water. The truth is, you can't make huge shifts in blood alkalinity or acidity, but you can small shifts that are significant enough to reverse cancer.
The pH of your blood is tightly regulated by a complex system of buffers that are continuously at work to maintain a range of 7.3 to 7.41, which is slightly more alkaline than pure water.
If the pH of your blood falls below 7.3, the result is a condition called acidosis, a state that leads to central nervous system depression. Severe acidosis - where blood pH falls below 7.00 - can lead to a coma and even death. If the pH of your blood rises above 7.45, the result is alkalosis.
The bottom line is that if you're breathing and going about your daily activities, your body is doing an adequate job of keeping your blood pH somewhere between 7.3 to 7.41, and the foods that you are eating are not causing any wild deviations of your blood pH. However keeping your body closer to an alkaline state by even a few points up .05 can make a significant difference in how well cancer grows or suppresses. Cancer cells can't live in an alkaline environment.
The reason acidosis is more common in our society is mostly due to the typical American diet, which is far too high in acid-producing animal products like meat, and dairy, and far too low in alkaline-producing foods like fresh vegetables. Additionally, we eat acid-producing processed foods like white flour and sugar and drink acid-producing beverages like coffee and soft drinks. We use too many drugs, which are acid-forming; and we use artificial chemical sweeteners like NutraSweet, Equal, or aspartame, which are extremely acid-forming. One of the best things we can do to correct an overly-acid body is to clean up the diet and lifestyle.
Dr. A. Keith Brewer explained that in alkaline environments and high pH condition, the acid toxins of the cancer cell are neutralized and rendered nontoxic. Acidic toxins, and not the tumor lump per se, is what brings about the death of the host. In the high pH condition, the life of the cancer cell is short. The dead cancer cells are readily absorbed by the system and eliminated. "I am convinced that it is food that causes cancer, but it is the food we don't eat and not the food we do eat."
This condition forces the body to borrow minerals--including calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium--from vital organs and bones to buffer (neutralize) the acid and safely remove it from the body. Once a person is diagnosed with cancer, the most effective way of reversing the disease is to move towards an alkaline diet and shift blood pH towards the 7.41 range. This is accomplished most effectively with raw fruits and vegetables and daily greens which maximize phytonutrients and enhance the immune system's potential to reverse cancer. No, the body will not dramatically shift blood pH, but it doesn't need to for cancer cells to die. Even a small shift will reverse cancer and prevent the body from borrowing minerals from organs and bones to compensate for a nutritionally deficient diet. That's where alkalizing agents come in.
I have seen stage IV cancer patients with tumors the size of footballs recover using alkalizing agents. It is beyond the scope of this article to explain how alkalizing agents and pH therapy can eliminate cancer, however if you seek the assistance of any Naturopathic Physician well-versed in cancer treatment, the protocols are fairly common although inconsistent.
The bottom line is that the body can achieve the metabolic accomplishment of keeping blood pH towards the alkaline spectrum where cancer will not proliferate. The immune system can then thrive and signal recovery which is facilitated through nutritional mechanisms and alkalizing agents to maximize recovery and make treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation or surgery completely unnecessary.
Sugar Feeds Cancer
Why The Cancer Industry Claims This Is a Myth
They claim there is no evidence that cancer cells use glucose and produce energy in a different way from healthy cells. The "sugar feeds cancer" myth distorts sensible dietary advice which must be based on nutritional and scientific fact.
Understanding cancer cannot result from the view on a single cancer event, but must consider the combined action of all cellular triggers in a given cellular background. There is little doubt in the scientific community that the high rate of carbohydrate ingestion contributes to various metabolic diseases, including the development of aggressive cancer.
The medical establishment may be missing the connection between sugar and its role in tumorgenesis Consider the million-dollar positive emission tomography device, or PET scan, regarded as one of the ultimate cancer-detection tools. PET scans use radioactively labeled glucose to detect sugar-hungry tumor cells. PET scans are used to plot the progress of cancer patients and to assess whether present protocols are effective.
Domestic animals (e.g. cats and dogs) which usually consume western diets with a comparatively high glycemic index, frequently suffer from aggressive cancer, whereas carnivore animals and herbivore animals do have a low rate of metastasizing cancer and rarely die from this disease. Both carnivores and herbivores predominantly live from proteins and fat/oil. Although herbivores ingest large amounts of complex carbohydrates (cellulose and other fibres), these are fermented to fatty acids by bacteria within the gastrointestinal tract and therefore exhibit an extremely low glycemic index. Limited release or even absence of glucose during digestion may explain the low rates of cancer-caused mortality in herbivore and carnivore animals.
A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients. Furthermore, an epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that keep track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others) revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women.
In Europe, the "sugar feeds cancer" concept is so well accepted that oncologists, or cancer doctors, use the Systemic Cancer Multistep Therapy (SCMT) protocol. Conceived by Manfred von Ardenne in Germany in 1965, SCMT entails injecting patients with glucose to increase blood-glucose concentrations. This lowers pH values in cancer tissues via lactic acid formation. In turn, this intensifies the thermal sensitivity of the malignant tumors and also induces rapid growth of the cancer. Patients are then given whole-body hyperthermia (42 C core temperature) to further stress the cancer cells, followed by chemotherapy or radiation. SCMT was tested on 103 patients with metastasized cancer or recurrent primary tumors in a clinical phase-I study at the Von Ardenne Institute of Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany. Five-year survival rates in SCMT-treated patients increased by 25 to 50 percent, and the complete rate of tumor regression increased by 30 to 50 percent.20 The protocol induces rapid growth of the cancer, then treats the tumor with toxic therapies for a dramatic improvement in outcome.
For metastatic cancer cells, a shift towards growth is facilitated by an evolutionary novel microenvironment within the body, which is characterized by a permanent availability of high amounts of glucose due to a nutrition with a high glycemic index, the absence of periods of starvation, as well as reduced physical activity. The more the body absorbs simple carbohydrates in the form of artificial sugars
Conventional Cancer Treatment Kills More Than It Cures
Why The Cancer Industry Claims This Is a Myth
The medical community insists that surgery is still the most effective treatment we have for cancer. Radiotherapy helps cure more people than cancer drugs. Yet chemotherapy and other cancer drugs have a very important part to play in cancer treatment -- in some cases helping to cure the disease, and in others helping to prolong survival. Chemotherapy does not encourage cancer.
Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make money from it. That's the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not because it's effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it does the opposite. Chemotherapy boosts cancer growth and long-term mortality rates. Most chemotherapy patients either die or are plagued with illness within 10-15 years after treatment. It destroys their immune system, increases neuro-cognitive decline, disrupts endocrine functioning and causes organ and metabolic toxicities. Patients basically live in a permanent state of disease until their death.
The reason a 5-year relative survival rate is the standard used to assess mortality rates is due to most cancer patients going downhill after this period. It's exceptionally bad for business and the cancer industry knows it. They could never show the public the true 97% statistical failure rate in treating long-term metastatic cancers. If they did publish the long-term statistics for all cancers administered cytotoxic chemotherapy, that is 10+ years and produced the objective data on rigorous evaluations including the cost-effectiveness, impact on the immune system, quality of life, morbidity and mortality, it would be very clear to the world that chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival at all. No such study has ever been conducted by independent investigators in the history of chemotherapy. The only studies available come from industry funded institutions and scientists and none of them have ever inclusively quantified the above variables.
Why? Money, greed and profits run the cancer industry--nothing else. The cancer establishment must retreat from the truth to treat cancer because there will never be any profit for them in in eradicating the disease. There is no governing body in the world that protects consumers from being subjected to these toxic therapies or even known carcinogens in our foods our environment, because that too, will prevent the profits from rolling in. It's a business of mammoth proportions and must be treated as such.
According to official statistics, one person out of two is claimed to recover from cancer through conventional methods. Although dramatic, the information nevertheless contains a certain amount of hope, as implicitly it provides something positive for both scientists and patients. To the scientists it says: continue the research because it is producing results; do not try preventive, alternative theoretical or therapeutic roads, nor get discouraged by the fact that patients keep on dying every day. To the patients, on the other hand, it provides a warning: you have a 50 percent chance of making it, as long as you follow the conventional therapeutic protocols without trying what they claim are the useless alternatives.
So, in the early stages of tumors (the dubious ones) the recovery rates are extremely high, while in the following stages -- that is, where they certainly are tumors -- the rates are barely above zero. The reason for the discrepancy is the qualification of the data and how a patient is assessed in terms of recovery. Immune reconstitution and tolerance, organ and metabolic toxicities, endocrine challenges, functional outcomes, quality of life, and neurocognitive outcomes are NEVER inclusively assessed in any clinical study discussing the long-term survival and recovery rates of cancer patients. The damage to these systems slowly develops after chemotherapy, however if often does not begin to manifest throughout the body until several months or even years have passed. It takes time, but within a 3-5 year period, most chemotherapy patients begin to have many more symptoms of disease than they every had before their diagnosis, due to and as a direct result of cytotoxic drug intervention.
Adjuvant chemotherapy is often given to patients who might not really need it at all. Oncologists do not consider the whole spectrum of chemotherapy risks versus benefits and thus compromise quality of life for every patient they treat. A study in the Annals of Oncology is one of few which assessed the different potential long-term adverse events associated with adjuvant chemotherapy in cancer, with a particular focus on long-term cardiac toxicity, secondary leukemia, cognitive function, and neurotoxicity. The authors stated that the adverse events are frequently overshadowed by the well-demonstrated clinical efficacy and/or reassuring short-term safety profiles of the different chemotherapy regimens commonly used today.
Another study in the American Society of Clinical Oncology determined whether long-term survivors of metastatic testicular cancer have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity more than 10 years after chemotherapy. They observed a significantly increased risk for occurrence of cardiac events accompanied by a persisting unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile likely due to chemotherapeutic agents.
A 12-year meta-analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology observed adults who had developed cancer and treated with chemotherapy. The 12-year study looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult. 97% of the time, chemotherapy did not work in regressing the metastatic cancers.