This is information I gathered is dedicated to anybody who's life has been impacted by cancer and chemotherapy whether it be themselves, family or friends. By the grace of God I've been 10 years free from cancer. For 8 years I have been reading about health and realized how much I and others would have benefited from this info. So my hope is to help bring education to others so they can make their own informed decision.

Tom K

TOXIC EFFECTS OF CHEMOTHERAPY

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CHECK
http://www.whale.to/cancer/chemo.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/chemotherapy.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/salud_defeatcancer.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industrybigpharma.htm

http://whale.to/cancer.html
http://augmentinforce.50webs.com/The%20Side%20Effects%20of%20Chemotherapy%20on%20the%20Body.htm#The%20Side%20Effects%20of%20Chemotherapy%20on%20the%20Bodyhttp://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/cancer_business.htm

"It is estimated that 70-80% of cancer diagnoses may be due to synthetic chemical exposure. And according to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) approximately 400 chemicals have already been identified in human tissue. "

This year, more than 1 million Americans and more than 10 million people worldwide are expected to be diagnosed with cancer, a disease commonly believed to be preventable. Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle. The lifestyle factors include cigarette smoking, diet (fried foods, red meat), alcohol, sun exposure, environmental pollutants, infections, stress, obesity, and physical inactivity. The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/

According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer,

"...80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally and thus theoretically avoidable." ⁽⁵⁾

Environmental causes of cancer include lifestyle factors such as smoking, a diet high in animal products and low in fresh fruit & vegetables, excessive exposure to sunlight, food additives, alcohol, workplace hazards, pollution, electromagnetic radiation, and even certain pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures.

But unfortunately, as expressed by medical historian Hans Ruesch,

"Despite the general recognition that 85 per cent of all cancers is caused by environmental influences, less than 10 per cent of the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute budget is given to environmental causes.

And despite the recognition that the majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than 1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to nutrition studies. And even that small amount had to be forced on the Institute by a special amendment of the National Cancer Act in 1974." ⁽⁶⁾

^{http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/salud_defeatcancer14.htm}

Pharmaceutical drugs are not intended to cure diseases. According to health insurers, over 24,000 pharmaceutical drugs are currently marketed and prescribed without any proven therapeutic value. (AOK Magazine, 4/98)

Every year in the United Kingdom, 200,000 people are diagnosed with cancer and 152,500 people die.¹ In the United States, the annual death rate for this disease is approximately 547,000.² These deaths are recorded as cancer deaths, but how many of these deaths are really attributable to the disease itself? How many deaths should in fact be recorded as “death by doctoring”?

When we consider that conventional treatment consists almost entirely of radiation, chemotherapy and the long-term application of toxic pharmaceuticals-treatments which are all well known for their life-threatening side-effects — then the question becomes all the more legitimate.

On chemotherapy, for instance, note the following:

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.”

(Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, The Healing of Cancer, Marcus Books, 1990)

Polls were taken by accomplished scientists at the McGill Cancer Center from 118 doctors who are all experts on cancer. They asked the doctors to imagine they had cancer and to choose from six different “experimental” therapies. These doctors not only denied chemo choices, but they said they wouldn’t allow their family members to go through the process either! What does that say about their true opinion of this archaic method?

http://www.endalldisease.com/75-of-physicians-in-the-world-refuse-chemotherapy-for-themselves/

By Dr. Mercola

Imagine a commercial plane crashed and there were some fatalities involved. You can be sure that would make the headline of every major newspaper. Well, we have the equivalent of 8-10 planes crashing EVERY DAY with everyone on board dying from cancer.

Nearly two million Americans are diagnosed with cancer every year—one person out of three will be hit with a cancer diagnosis at some time in their lives, in spite of the massive technological advances over the past half-century.

Western medicine is no closer to finding a "cancer cure," while cancer has grown into a worldwide epidemic of staggering proportions. The statistics speak for themselves:

In the early 1900s, one in 20 people developed cancer

In the 1940s, one in 16 people developed cancer

In the 1970s, it was one in 10

Today, it's one in three!

According to the CDC, about 1,660,290 (1.66 million) new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed in 2013 ¹. If overall death rates are falling, why are incidence rates still on the rise? The answer is simple: the 40-year "war on cancer" has been a farce

"The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million.3 The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million.4 The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251 ""As few as 5% and no more than 20% of iatrogenic acts are ever reported.(16,24,25,33,34) This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have an annual iatrogenic death toll much higher than 783,936. In 1994, Leape said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes resulting in death annually was equivalent to three jumbo-jet crashes every two days.(16) Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day."

"a solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested.

Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost consistently." ⁽

http://www.whale.to/a/null9.html

A recent national survey of physicians found that 94% are involved in marketing relationships with pharmaceutical companies and accept some form of industry gifts or payments. Another survey found that physicians were significantly less likely than patients to believe that industry gifts are influential with just 9% of physicians believing that a small textbook is influential compared to 37% of patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811591/#!po=13.8889

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17460228

The American Cancer Society has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support
Mercola.com

L Pharmaceutical Industry Influences in Medical Schools

The obvious question is: What is so lacking in medical education that so many doctors do not see a conflict of interest in accepting pharmaceutical industry favors? Aren't medical students taught ethics anymore? Aren't they educated about conflicts of interest? Today, drug company representatives frequent the halls of many medical schools, providing gifts and free lunches and seminars. And with more and more faculty members dependent on drug-company funding, it is unlikely that medical students hear much about the importance of distancing themselves from drug company influences.

The effects were revealed in a survey in which more than 90% of medical residents acknowledged that drug company marketing influenced their decisions about medications. The study also revealed that "approximately 50% of the items that residents carry have pharmaceutical company origins.⁴" No wonder patients complain that many doctors look like walking advertisements for the drug industry. Don't doctors realize how it appears when their tools, pens, pads, and posters in their examining rooms carry drug company logos? Can’t doctors afford to buy their own stuff?

4. Sigworth, SK, Nettleman, MD, Cohen, GM. Pharmaceutical Branding of Resident Physicians [Letter]. JAMA 2001;286(9):1024-25.

http://medicationsense.com/articles/may_aug_06/conflict_of_interest_060306.php
"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."—John Diamond

Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40-which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)

"With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago."-P Quillin, Ph.D.

"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.

I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in that by dramatically strengthening the body's immune system through diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid itself of the cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases. Consequently, I wouldn't have chemotherapy and radiation because I'm not interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer patients."-Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.

John Robbins:

"Percentage of cancer patients whose lives are predictably saved by chemotherapy - 3%

Conclusive evidence (majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influcence on survival or quality of life - none.

Percentage of oncologists who said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity" - 75%

Percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy - 75%.

Company that accounts for nearly half of the chemotherapy sales in the world - Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

Chairman of the board of Bristol-Meyers - Richard L. Gelb.

Mr. Gelb's other job: vice chairman, board of overseers, board of managers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, World's largest private cancer treatment and research center.

Chairman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering's board of overseers, board of managers - John S. Reed.

Reed's other job - director, Philip Morris (tobacco company).

Director, Ivax, Inc., a prominent chemotherapy company - Samuel Broder.

Broder's other job (until 1995) - executive director, National Cancer Institute."from Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Source of True Healing by John Robbins.

"If you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..(but) when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient."-Ralph Moss

"The majority of publications equate the effect of chemotherapy with (tumour) response, irrespective of survival. Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion which is based on a fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies. To date there is no clear evidence that the treated patients, as a whole, benefit from chemotherapy as to their quality of life."-Abel.1990.

"For the majority of the cancers we examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have been small or have been overestimated by the published rates...It is difficult to find that there has been much progress...(For breast cancer), there is a slight improvement...(which) is considerably less than reported."-General Accounting Office

"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."-Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/truth-about-cancer/chemotherapy-quotes

heartbreaking for both patients and their loved ones, all in the name of trustworthy medical treatment. Although the drug treatment comes with the promise to improve the patient's quality of life, it is just common sense that a drug that makes them throw up and lose their hair, while wrecking their immune system, is doing the exact opposite. Chemo-therapy can give the patient life-threatening mouth sores. It attacks the immune system by destroying billions of immune cells (white blood cells). Its deadly poisons inflame every part of the body. The drugs can slough off the entire lining of their intestines. The most common side effect experienced among chemo patients is their complete lack of energy. The new additional drugs now given to many chemo patients may prevent the patient from noticing some of the side effects, but they hardly reduce the immensely destructive and suppressive effect of the chemotherapy itself. Remember, the reason chemotherapy can shrink some tumors is because it causes massive destruction in the body.

If you have cancer, you may think that feeling tired is just part of the disease. This rarely is the case. Feeling unusually tired is more likely due to anemia, a common side effect of most chemotherapy drugs. Chemo drugs can dramatically decrease your red blood cell levels, and this reduces oxygen availability to the 60-100 trillion cells of your body. You can literally feel the energy being zapped from every cell of your body -- a physical death without dying. Chemo-caused fatigue has a negative impact on day-to-day activities in 89% of all patients. With no energy, there can be no joy and no hope, and all bodily functions become subdued.

One long-term side effect is that these patients' bodies can no longer respond to nutritional or immune-strengthening approaches to cancerous tumors. All of this may explain why cancer patients who do not receive any treatment at all, have an up to four times higher remission rate than those who receive treatment. The sad thing is that chemotherapy does not cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway. Conclusive evidence (for the majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influence on survival or quality of life does not exist.

To promote chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer is misleading, to say the least. By permanently damaging the body's immune system and other important parts, chemo-therapy has become a leading cause of treatment-caused diseases such as heart disease, liver disease, intestinal diseases, diseases of the immune system, infections, brain diseases, pain disorders, and rapid aging.

Before committing themselves to being poisoned, cancer patients need to question their doctors and ask them to produce the research or evidence that shrinking a tumor actually translates to any increase in survival. If they tell you that chemotherapy is your best chance of surviving, you will know they are lying or are simply misinformed. As Abel's research clearly demonstrated, there is no such evidence anywhere to be found in the medical literature. Subjecting patients to chemotherapy robs them of a fair chance of finding or responding to a real cure and deserves criminal prosecution."

"Chemotherapy. Certain chemotherapy drugs can damage your bone marrow — the spongy material found in your bones. Your bone marrow makes blood cells, which grow rapidly, making them very sensitive to the effects of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy kills many of the cells in your bone marrow, but the cells recover with time. Your doctor can tell you whether your specific chemotherapy treatment and dose will put you at risk of low blood cell counts."

Hardin B. Jones, Ph.D.

[back] Cancer Industry critics

"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said, "Cancer does not cure". Third he said "There is a physiological mechanism which finishes off an individual".) http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/medicalignorance.htm

Hardin B. Jones, Ph.D. "A Report on Cancer," paper delivered to the ACS's 11th Annual Science Writers Conference, New Orleans, Mar. 7, 1969.

laetrile Books

http://www.whale.to/cancer/laetrile_books.html

“ The reason the media blacklists the truth about the 90% cure rate treatments is that the media is owned by multi-billionaires and the treatments that have 90% cure rates are not profitable enough to satisfy their lust for profits. People who trust the media, and who trust the multi-billionaires who own the pharmaceutical industry, have a 3% chance of surviving their cancer for 5 years!!

If you don’t believe me, study the data in the Australian and American traditional medicine “5-year survival” charts and see what the 5-year cure rate is for your type of cancer:

Clinical Oncology (2004, p.549-560):

Oncology Cure Rates

If you studied the charts, the 5-year cure rate in America is 2.1%. In other words, in five years after diagnosis, 97.9% of the cancer patients treated with traditional cancer treatments, meaning those who trust the media and pharmaceutical industry, are dead.

So what are the cancer treatments with 90% cure rates that the media is hiding? I will give you one quick example.

The late Dr. William D. Kelley, a dentist turned cancer researcher, treated over 33,000 cancer patients. Among those who went to him first, his 5-year cure rate was 90%.

Why hasn’t the media glorified Dr. Kelley? The reason is that Dr. Kelley used products that cannot be patented.

It is patents that create massive profits for the media and the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry!! Because Dr. Kelley did not use patented drugs, the media doesn’t talk about him and no one in the medical industry is using his safe, gentle and highly effective protocol (with one exception in New York – the clinic of Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez).”

http://www.cancertutor.com/

The end result is that chemo kills more patients than it "cures". Most of those deaths are the result of liver or heart failure. Statistically, it has been estimated that the five year success rate from chemo is only about 3% (meaning only about 3% more patients who opted for chemo survived at least five years than did those who opted to not undergo chemo). But even that meager statistic is misleading in two key ways: First of all, though survival rates are slightly higher for I the first couple of years compared to those who opted out of chemo, after the third year the survival rate for those who opted out is greater than those who were treated with chemo and the gap widens significantly every year after that. Secondly, and perhaps most important of all, the survival rates compare all of those who either undergo chemotherapy or decide against it. That includes the very large number of people who do little or nothing to address their cancer naturally and merely forego chemo. If chemo survival rates were compared with those of people who not only opted out of chemo, but also chose a non-invasive natural protocol to eliminate the toxins and other causes of cancer, to boost their immune systems and to attack the cancer naturally without inflicting damage to the rest of the body, there would surely be no comparison. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/027028_cancer_WHO_natural.html#ixzz1wzFnwB7b

Lately, a recent study in Britain has raised serious questions about chemotherapy, in particular the role it plays in hastening and even causing the death of late-stage cancer sufferers.

Details and Findings of Study

The study had been carried out by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Deaths in Britain, whose members are mostly taken from British medical royal colleges. It had looked at the cases of 600 cancer sufferers in the country who had passed on within 30 days of treatment. The majority of the said patients had already been declared "incurable" by doctors, and had been put on chemotherapy for palliative purposes.

And the study found that about 1 in every 4 of such deaths had either been sped up or even caused by chemotherapy. The study's findings also included the discovery that 2 out of every 5 of the patients had suffered significant poisoning from the treatment.

How Effective is Conventional Cancer Treatment?

The findings of this study would be of little surprise to many; in fact, some would even say chemo must surely have caused or hastened more than a quarter of the deaths. Chemotherapy, after all, as virtually everyone "knows", is a severely toxic treatment method, and a person has to be "strong enough" to withstand it, which is extremely strange and illogical considering that cancer patients already have seriously compromised immune systems. There is, really, nothing intuitively right about the use of chemo to deal with cancer.

The (Lack of) Reliability of Conventional Cancer Statistics

When it comes to conventional cancer treatment, another key point to consider is the way its statistics are packaged. In her well-researched and well-written book "Outsmart Your Cancer", Tanya Harter Pierce outlines 6 main ways in which cancer statistics are manipulated to make them look better than they are - she had obtained these findings mainly from the excellent work of Lorraine Day, MD, and Ralph W Moss, PhD.

* "Cure" is defined as being alive 5 years after diagnosis. This means that a person could be very sick with cancer for 5 years and 1 day, after which he or she dies, and still be declared as "cured" by chemotherapy. Isn't this simply playing with words?

* Certain types of cancer and certain groups of people which exhibit poor recovery rates are simply excluded from overall statistics. This artificially raises the average "cure" rate.

* Easily curable cancerous and even pre-cancerous conditions are included in overall statistics. An example for the latter is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which was included in and now accounts for a significant portion of breast cancer statistics. This move artificially increases the overall recovery rate.

* Earlier detection is taken to mean longer survival time. This means that a person may die at the exact same point of cancer development as another person, but the former is taken to have lived longer simply by virtue of the fact that his tumor was discovered earlier. In other words, different start points are used. Isn't this merely delusional?

* Patients who fail to "complete" conventional treatment protocols are excluded from overall statistics. This means that if a patient prescribed a 10-course chemotherapy protocol dies after 9 sessions, he is not included as a "failure" case. Control groups, however, play by different rules. This, again, artificially raises cure rates for conventional protocols. Isn't this totally unscientific?

* Adjusting for "Relative Survival Rate". This is perhaps best explained by Dr Moss: "Relative survival rates take into account the 'expected mortality figures'. Put simply, this means that if a person hadn't died of cancer he might have been run over by a truck, and that must be factored into the equation." Once again, this artificially raises the success rates of conventional treatment.

Conclusion

Taking into account the abovementioned, two main questions spring to my mind. Are cancer patients and their families informed of the fine print of cancer statistics when they are advised by their doctors to proceed with conventional cancer treatment, or when they are told that chemotherapy offers a such-and-such percentage of "cure" and is therefore their best (or only) option?

And, if, even after such deliberately deceptive maneuvers, official conventional cancer statistics still read so poorly, how bad exactly would the real statistics read without the blatant manipulation?

Intuitively, we probably know the rough answers.

Ultimately, the choice to go conventional, alternative or a combination of both is a decision which lies and should continue to lie with patients and their families. It will be a sad day when sick people are forced to undergo any particular protocol, especially when, statistically speaking, the method does not even work.

But a fundamental assumption underlying free will is the availability of perfect information, which unfortunately seems far from reality as far as cancer treatment is concerned. In choosing the type of cancer therapy to undergo, the above questions must be seriously considered by those affected. And if certain parties choose to present blinkered perspectives of reality, then it is up to cancer patients and their families to do as much as they can to patch up the remaining portions of that reality which are blocked from their view.

Sources

Chemotherapy contributes to a quarter of cancer deaths: study (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/1...)

http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/hirnei...

"Outsmart Your Cancer", Tanya Harter Pierce
http://www.naturalnews.com/025499_cancer_chemotherapy_treatment.html#ixzz3IV3nLqZ

It turns out that chemotherapy damages healthy cells, causing them to secrete a protein that accelerates the growth of cancer tumors. (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/chemotherapy-backfi...)

This protein, dubbed "WNT16B," is taken up by nearby cancer cells, causing them to "grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. He's the co-author of the study that documented this phenomenon, published in Nature Medicine.

This protein, it turns out, explains why cancer tumors grow more aggressively following chemotherapy treatments. In essence, chemotherapy turns healthy cells into WNT16B factories which churn out this "activator" chemical that accelerates cancer tumor growth.

The findings of the study were confirmed with prostate cancer, breast cancer and ovarian cancer tumors. This discovery that chemotherapy backfires by accelerating cancer tumor growth is being characterized as "completely unexpected" by scientists.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036725_chemotherapy_cancer_tumors_backfires.html

Chemotherapy drugs are derived from the Nazi's WWII mustard gas chemicals

Mustard gas, also known as sulfur mustard, is by far the most horrific

chemical weapon ever used in history.

German scientists working for the U.S. knew "mustard" chemo brought only temporary tumor remission, and if ingestion of toxins continued, cancer returned with a vengeance.

Sulfur mustard is a vesicant, meaning it destroys mucous membranes. High doses cause nausea, vomiting, and respiratory failure. This volatile poison prevents the normal sequence of DNA replication, depleting the lining of the gastrointestinal tract and causing massive loss of bone marrow. In simple terms, sulfur mustard is basically the "egg" from which chemo has hatched. During WWII, Dwight D.

Eisenhower stockpiled 100 tons of mustard gas on the S.S. John Harvey when it was stationed in Italy's Harbor, but the Nazi airstrikes destroyed it.

Survivors died soon thereafter, and autopsies revealed they suffered from profound lymphopenia, as well as suppression of myeloid cell lines, which brings us to the grim chemotherapy facts.

Chemotherapy kills white blood cells, which are necessary for the immune system to fight off infection.

During World War I and World War II, mustard gas was used as a chemical warfare agent. Soldiers exposed to the gas developed changes in their blood, and the physicians treating them speculated that mustard gas was a substance that might also be used to treat cancer.

http://grandan.blogspot.com/2012/06/chemotherapy-drugs-are-derived-from.html

Mustard gas, more properly called nitrogen mustard, is an extremely toxic substance. Created by the Germans in World War I, it has been called the most effective chemical used in that war. If respirators were not worn, the death rate was about 50 percent. Any part of the body exposed to it will suffer, from burns on the skin to severe irritation of the lung tissues if the gas is inhaled.

Nitrogen Mustard and Chemotherapy

some drugs derived from nitrogen mustard are still used in chemotherapy today. They are usually used in combination with other chemotherapy drugs. Mustargen, mustine and mechlorethamine hydrochloride are all forms of nitrogen mustard. These medications are injected into the veins for lymphomas and cancers, and also used as a lotion for skin lesions of one type of lymphoma. Nitrogen mustard preparations are used in the treatment of Hodgkin's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and as palliative chemotherapy in lung and breast cancers. Palliative chemotherapy is not a cure, but is used to shrink tumors Development of the first chemotherapy drug

As early as 1919 it was known that mustard gas was a suppressor of hematopoiesis. ^[30] In addition, autopsies performed on 75 soldiers who had died of mustard gas during World War I were done by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania who reported decreased counts of white blood cells. ^[26] This led the American Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) to finance the biology and chemistry departments at Yale University to conduct research on the use of chemical warfare during World War II. ^[26] ^[31] As a part of this effort, the group investigated nitrogen mustard as a therapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma and other types of lymphoma and leukemia, and this compound was tried out on its first human patient in December 1942. The results of this study were not published until 1946, when they were declassified. ^[31] In a parallel track, after the air raid on Bari in December 1943, the doctors of the U.S. Army noted that white blood cell counts were reduced in their patients. Some years after World War II was over, the incident in Bari and the work of the Yale University group with nitrogen mustard converged, and this prompted a search for other similar chemical compounds. Due to its use in previous studies, the nitrogen mustard called "HN2" became the first cancer chemotherapy drug, mustine, to be used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_mustard

The skin of victims of mustard gas blistered, the eyes became very sore and they began to vomit. Mustard gas caused internal and external bleeding and attacked the bronchial tubes, stripping off the mucous membrane. This was extremely painful and most soldiers had to be strapped to their beds. It usually took a person four or five weeks to die of mustard gas poisoning. One nurse, Vera Brittain, wrote: "I wish those people who talk about going on with this war whatever it costs could see the soldiers suffering from mustard gas poisoning. Great mustard-coloured blisters, blind eyes, all sticky and stuck together, always fighting for breath, with voices a mere whisper, saying that their throats are closing and they know they will choke."

http://www.stopcancer.com/chemo/mustard_gas.htm

Chemotherapy

is a general term describing any treatment that involves

the use of a “chemical” agent (drug) to stop cancer cells from proliferating. Believe it or not, the first agent used in chemotherapy was the

biochemical warfare agent known as mustard gas.

The toxic mix of chemotherapy drugs usually fall into one of three classes—

anthracyclines, taxanes, or platinum-based drugs. In one way or another,

these drugs attempt to target and quickly destroy dividing cancer cells.

But the drugs’ overt failure to make a dent in the war on cancer elucidates

their flaws, as do their biological actions.

The anthracyclines are technically antibiotics, but they are so toxic

that they were never approved for that use. They work by overloading the

cells with oxygen-free radicals, thereby damaging DNA and future repli

cation. But they also attack healthy cells, especially those within the heart.

Doctors contributing to the

New England Journal of Medicine

showed

that up to 57 percent of children receiving anthracyclines suffered from

cardiotoxicity, sometimes resulting in heart failure later in life.

111

The

researchers stated that “avoiding anthracyclines would be an option” for

avoiding the toxic outcome. Research by Dennis Slamon, MD, PhD, chief

of oncology at the University of California, Los Angeles, has led him to

insist that these drugs no longer be used in the fight against cancer.

112

In most treatment protocols for childhood cancer, anthracyclines are

still being introduced without data from randomized, controlled trials

that would support their use. The same is true for the use of the drugs

on adults.

Taxanes destroy the structural component of cells that are responsible

for dividing. These components are known technically as microtubules.

Since all cells—cancer or otherwise—have these, taxane destruction

is unselective. Just as cancer cells are destroyed by the drugs, so are

healthy ones.

Platinum-based drugs like cisplatin chop DNA into tiny pieces,

preventing cellular information from being passed to the next generation of cells. Like mustard gas, the drugs attack healthy cells as well as

cancerous ones, causing humiliating and deadly side effects. For instance,

145

cisplatin acts as a cog in the wheel of our DNA repair system. That causes

our genetic information to be split, leading to cell death. This would be

great if it occurred only among cancerous cells. But it doesn’t. The chem

ical cog goes after anything that contains DNA, and that means healthy

cells get the monkey wrench, too.

But even more ghastly than being nonselective, today’s chemotherapy

drugs can elicit cancer among healthy cells not yet affected by a patient’s

cancer. Leukemia and other forms of cancer show up years or even

decades after chemo treatments. This is hard to swallow, but even harder

when you’re a drug chemist learning that the same is true for today’s

bestselling chemotherapy drug, tamoxifen.

TAMOXIFEN SECRETS UNCOVERED

Long white lab coat, giant safety goggles, rubber gloves, and face mask

were my usual chemist attire when I worked for Big Pharma. I rarely got

to sport my baggy jeans, tight T-shirt and black leather wristband. The

chemicals I was dealing with were simply too hazardous and required

that I wear as much protection as possible. Having them penetrate my

protective layers could mean bad news internally. I was designing and

making chemical cousins of tamoxifen.

Tamoxifen is known commercially as Nolvadex. It’s the gold standard

in chemotherapy for breast cancer. But what a drug does biologically and

what a drug does according to pharmaceutical advertising are often two

distinctly different things.

To my surprise, I learned that the tamoxifen cash cow wasn’t

performing like the industry wanted. Patients who took it were dying

from cancer at a much faster rate than without it. As a medicinal chemist,

my job was to fix the “little cancer problem of tamoxifen.”

Initially, tamoxifen was thought to stop cancer by displacing estrogen

one of the hormones that helped it grow. As time progressed, though,

researchers learned that tamoxifen acted just like the cancer fertilizer

by mimicking estrogen. The end result was a biochemical environment

favorable to cancer growth among users of tamoxifen. My task was made

clear: design “knockoffs” that are effective (at blocking estrogen) without

causing cancer.

My attempt to design safer tamoxifen alternatives was unsuccessful.

And after one year, the project was ended. However, access to tamoxifen

wasn’t. It remained on the market. Even today, it’s advertised and pushed

by doctors as a first line of defense against breast cancer. But science and

anyone who’s been unfortunate enough to take tamoxifen can tell you that

this isn’t something you want to swallow in an attempt to beat cancer.

The National Cancer Institute has recently begun to warn that “tamox

-ifen increases the risk of two types of cancer that can develop in the uterus:

endometrial cancer, which arises in the lining of the uterus, and uterine

sarcoma, which arises in the muscular wall of the uterus. Like all cancers,

endometrial cancer and uterine sarcoma are potentially life-threatening.”

113

The risk of these types of cancers triples with the use of tamoxifen, while

other types—such as liver and breast cancer—are just as likely.

Tamoxifen is so potent that it has been listed as a cancer-causing

substance in the Department of Health and Human Services’

Report on

Carcinogens.

This report is a scientific and public health document first

ordered by Congress in 1978 to educate the public and health profes

-sionals about the many cancers induced by chemicals in the home, work

-place, general environment, and from the use of certain drugs!

114

This brings me to my third universal cancer truth:

tamoxifen is not

a safe option for women battling breast cancer.

But don’t expect this

failing drug—or any other chemotherapy agents—to be pulled from

the gas–like toxicity, chemotherapy drugs
http://www.laymondesigns.com/realhealthhope/over_the_counter_natural_cures_sample_chapter.pdfmarket. Despite their mustard

Lung damage: The chemo drug bleomycin can damage the lungs, as can radiation therapy to the chest. This can lead to problems such as shortness of breath, which might not show up until years after treatment. Smoking can also seriously damage the lungs, so it’s important that people who have had these treatments do not smoke.

“All major cancer centers now have informed consent to alert patients to the immediate and long-term consequences of chemo,” Dr. Stan Gerson, director of the UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, told FoxNews.com. “Hardly any of these medicines are benign. The intensity and complexity of side effects both have to do with the age of the patient, and whether there are sequential treatments. It’s a complex test to foretell what they’re [going to experience].”

One of the most serious concerns for cancer patients post-chemotherapy is the possibility of a second malignancy. Although the likelihood of this happening is relatively low, both chemotherapy and radiation therapy are particularly toxic to cells in the bone marrow, increasing a patient’s risk for leukemia, a type of blood cancer that originates in the marrow.

The heart and cardiovascular system are also greatly affected by radiation and chemotherapy medications, especially by a class of drugs called anthracycline. It’s not uncommon for many cancer survivors to experience heart problems, such as swelling of the heart muscle, heart disease and congestive heart failure. Additionally, chemotherapy can cause long-term lung damage, leading to thickening of the lungs’ lining, inflammation and difficulty breathing.

Perhaps the most common side effect of chemotherapy is suppression of the body’s immune system. If suppressed for an extended period of time, the lowered immune system can give rise to many secondary infections throughout the course of cancer survivor’s life. In addition, chemotherapy can leave its mark on the nervous system, causing pain or weakness in the nerves of a person’s fingers and toes.

Although most of chemotherapy’s side effects have been well established and are usually very treatable, physicians have recently become concerned with a new concept called “chemo brain.” For many years, patients undergoing treatments have noted changes in their cognitive abilities, experiencing something of a “mental fog” and forgetfulness.

Now, a recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology has revealed that these effects aren’t necessarily all in patients’ heads. Researchers conducted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of 18 breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy treatments, which showed decreased brain activation during the period the drugs were administered.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/06/02/chemotherapy-how-it-can-impact-body-long-term/

Researchers with the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry have just been awarded a $805,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program to see if the answer to those questions is "yes". The study is investigating the very real possibility that dead cancer cells left over after chemotherapy spark cancer to spread to other parts of the body.

"What if by killing cancer cells with chemotherapy we inadvertently induce DNA structures that make surviving cancers cells more invasive? The idea is tough to stomach," Katri Selander, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor in the UAB Division of Hematology and Oncology and co-principal researcher on the grant, said in a statement to the media. "Fundamentally this question must be answered to advance the knowledge base and to know all the risks and benefits of cancer treatment. This research has the potential to reach across numerous scientific disciplines, and may one day improve the lives of patients worldwide."

The UAB scientists are concentrating on inactivated or altered genetic material (DNA) left in the body after breast-cancer cells are exposed to chemotherapy. The research team stated that the resulting altered DNA could be the deadly factor that sparks the dreaded process of metastasis through a specific molecular pathway. Finding out whether chemotherapy could cause cancer spread is hugely important to the field of oncology because metastasis is the number one cause of cancer recurrence and treatment failure.

Dead cancer cells have been found to activate a pathway in the body mediated as a protein dubbed toll-like receptor 9, or TLR9, that is present in the immune system and in many kinds of cancer. "If TLR9 boosts metastasis, then researchers will work on finding targeted therapies that block or regulate this molecular pathway," Dr. Selander stated.

For more information:
http://main.uab.edu/Sites/MediaRela...
http://www.naturalnews.com/chemothe...

Research using polls and questionnaires continue to show that 3 of every 4 doctors and scientists would refuse chemotherapy for themselves due to its devastating effects on the entire body and the immune system, and because of its extremely low success rate. On top of that, only 2 to 4% of all cancers even respond to chemotherapy or prove to be "life extending," yet it is prescribed across the board for just about every kind of cancer.
Polls were taken by accomplished scientists at the McGill Cancer Center from 118 doctors who are all experts on cancer. They asked the doctors to imagine they had cancer and to choose from six different "experimental" therapies. These doctors not only denied chemo choices, but they said they wouldn't allow their family members to go through the process either! What does that say about their true opinion of this archaic method?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036054_chemotherapy_physicians_toxicity.html#ixzz3IVCZgNf7

Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry fights the eradication of any disease at all costs. The pharmaceutical industry itself is the main obstacle, why today’s most widespread diseases are further expanding, including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, osteoporosis and many others. Pharmaceutical drugs are not intended to cure diseases. According to health insurers, over 24,000 pharmaceutical drugs are currently marketed and prescribed without any proven therapeutic value. (AOK Magazine, 4/98)

“According to medical doctors’ associations, the known dangerous side-effects of pharmaceutical drugs have become the fourth leading cause of death after heart attacks, cancer and strokes. (Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998)

“Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded twice. A major portion of their income is used up to finance the exploding profits of the pharmaceutical industry. In return, they are offered a medicine that does not even cure.”

Writing in the UK Guardian on February 7, 2002, senior health editor Sarah Bosely reported:

“Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put their names to articles, endorsing new medicines, that they have not written— a growing practice that some fear is putting scientific integrity in jeopardy.” ^12a

These supposed guardians of our health are being paid what to say. Said one physician in the article:

“What day is it today? I’m just working out what drug I’m supporting today.”

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_cancertreatment.htm

How Effective is Chemotherapy?

The following table was published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004. The results of this study were astonishing, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for ALL cancers!

In the U.S., chemo was most successful in treating testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease, where its success rate fell just below 38 percent and slightly over 40 percent respectively. Still well below the 50/50 mark.

A review of chemo on 5-year survival rates in Australia garnered almost identical results, with a 2.3 percent success rate, compared to the U.S. 2.1 percent rate of success.

And this is the best that conventional medicine has to offer for treating this widespread killer.

http://cancerfighter.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/chemotherapy-statistics/

We pride ourselves in America for being technologically advanced and that our technology is rooted in a foundation of good science.

Wrong. When it comes to medicine, little at all is based upon science. Again we shall point to the Office of Technological Assessment’s paper: Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies in which we are told that fewer than 20% of all medical procedures have been tested, and that of those tested, half were tested badly.

Medicine in America is not about healing.

When you are diagnosed with cancer, you are suddenly worth $300,000.00 to the cancer industry.

Most telling, according to Ralph Moss in his book Questioning Chemotherapy, is that in a good number of surveys, chemotherapists have responded that they would neither recommend chemotherapy for their families nor would they use it themselves. One of our advisors, Dr Dan Harper, reported to us about an unpublished cohort study in which it was revealed that only 9% of oncologists took chemotherapy for their cancers.

Let’s hear from a couple of physicians and doctors who have not yet succumb to the heavy hand of the cancer industry:

"...as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good." - Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society.

Walter Last, writing in The Ecologist, reported recently: “After analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr Hardin Jones, Professor at the University of California, concluded “...patients are as well, or better off untreated." Jones’ disturbing assessment has never been refuted.

Professor Charles Mathe declared: “If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.”

“Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure,” Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901 “Medical Oncology in the 90s.

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors,” Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer.

“Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years,” Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707.

Additionally, Irwin Bross, a biostatistician for the National Cancer Institute, discovered that many cancers that are benign (though thought to be malignant) and will not metastasize until they are hit with chemotherapy. In other words, he's found that many people who've been diagnosed with metastatic cancer did not have metastatic cancer until they got their chemotherapy.

For many cancers, chemotherapy just does not improve your survival rate. Some of these are colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, bladder, breast, ovarian, cervical and corpus uteri, head and neck.

Knowing this, oncologists still recommend a regimen of chemotherapy.

Here are two stories we received from Frank Wiewel:

When President Reagan had his colon cancer successfully removed by surgery, his health was reported daily as he recovered. On his return to work, a spokesperson appeared, proclaimed him cured, and that was that.

However, very nearly every patient who undergoes surgery for colon cancer gets put on chemotherapy afterwards. Why not Present Reagan?

...and since a picture says more than a thousand words, here is a reduced-size rendering of the burning and scarring resulting of chemotherapy fluid spilling onto the unprotected hand. Does this picture make one feel safer to have such an extremely aggressive toxic chemical administered within one’s body via intravenous injection? Knowing that our outer skin is actually better protected against any impacts than our inner body? That is also why nurses administering chemotherapy have to wear protective gloves and follow the most stringent security measures in case of any accidental spills of chemotherapy beyond 5 cc, see High risks involved in accidental spillage of chemotherapy drugs.

http://whale.to/cancer/chemo112.html

There is no scientific evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers, which accounts for 80% of all cancers? (Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chemotherapy drugs are of benefit to at most 5% of cancer patients they are given to, but are routinely given to 50% of patients?

John Cairns of Harvard in Scientific American

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75 % of oncologists, in one survey, said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grouped together, the average cancer patient has a 50/50 chance of living another 5 years; which are the same odds he or she had in 1971?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After $50 Billion spent on cancer research, the list of cancers responsive to chemotherapy is almost identical to what it was 25 years ago?
Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss, p81

the War on Cancer is a failure with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that one of the worlds leading nuclear medical scientist, John Gofman M.D.,Ph.D. found that past exposure to ionizing radiation, primarily medical x-rays (eg mammograms), is responsible for about 75 percent of the breast-cancer problem today?
http://ratical.co./radiation/CNR?PBC/Overview.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiation therapy does not improve the survival of patients with breast cancer !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that the mortality rate for breast cancer in women over 55 was about 20% higher in 1995 than in 1970 (so much for mammograms)? (Irwin D. Bross, Ph.D.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that two large studies found an increase in mortality of women (under 55) from breast cancer who were regularly screened with mammograms?
http://whale.to/cancer/chemo112.html

What is clear is that mammography cannot prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by mammography, it has been there as long as 12 years! It is therefore ridiculous to advertise mammography as ‘early detection’.

(McDougall, p. 114)

“The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast cancer, which they don’t. On the contrary, the painful compression of breast tissue during the procedure itself can increase the possibility of metastasis by as much as 80%! Dr McDougall notes that between 10% and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a self-limiting, non-life-threatening type called ‘ductal carcinoma in situ’. This harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive force of routine mammography.

(McDougall, p. 105)

“Most extensive studies show no increased survival rate from routine screening mammograms. After reviewing all available literature in the world on the subject, noted researchers Drs Wright and Mueller of the University of British Columbia recommended the withdrawal of public funding for mammography screening because the ‘benefit achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is substantial’.

(Lancet, July 1, 1995)

“The harm they’re referring to includes the constant worrying and emotional distress, as well as the tendency for unnecessary procedures and testing to be done, based on results which have a false positive rate as high as 50%.”

(New York Times, December 14, 1997) ^13a

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_cancertreatment.htm

MAINSTREAM ADMITS SIDE-EFFECTS

CHEMO BRAIN

updated 11/9/2006 10:45:03 AM ET

Print Font:

WASHINGTON — Chemotherapy causes changes in the brain's metabolism and blood flow that can last as long as 10 years, a discovery that may explain the mental fog and confusion that affect many cancer survivors, researchers said on Thursday.

Don't miss these Health stories

Splash News

More women opting for preventive mastectomy - but should they be?

Rates of women who are opting for preventive mastectomies, such as Angeline Jolie, have increased by an estimated 50 percent in recent years, experts say. But many doctors are puzzled because the operation doesn't carry a 100 percent guarantee, it's major surgery -- and women have other options, from a once-a-day pill to careful monitoring.

Larry Page's damaged vocal cords: Treatment comes with trade-offs

Report questioning salt guidelines riles heart experts

CDC: 2012 was deadliest year for West Nile in US

What stresses moms most? Themselves, survey says

The researchers, from the University of California, Los Angeles, found that women who had undergone chemotherapy five to 10 years earlier had lower metabolism in a key region of the frontal cortex.

Women treated with chemotherapy also showed a spike in blood flow to the frontal cortex and cerebellum while performing memory tests, indicating a rapid jump in activity level, the researchers said in a statement about their study.

"The same area of the frontal lobe that showed lower resting metabolism displayed a substantial leap in activity when the patients were performing the memory exercise," said Daniel Silverman, the UCLA associate professor who led the study.

"In effect, these women's brains were working harder than the control subjects' to recall the same information," he said in a statement.

Experts estimate at least 25 percent of chemotherapy patients are affected by symptoms of confusion, so-called chemo brain, and a recent study by the University of Minnesota reported an 82 percent rate, the statement said.

"People with 'chemo brain' often can't focus, remember things or multitask the way they did before chemotherapy," Silverman said. "Our study demonstrates for the first time that patients suffering from these cognitive symptoms have specific alterations in brain metabolism."

Advertise

The study, published on Thursday in the online edition of Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, tested 21 women who had surgery to remove breast tumors, 16 of whom had received chemotherapy and five who had not.

The researchers used positron emission tomography scans to compare the brain function of the women. They also compared the scans with those of 13 women who had not had breast cancer or chemotherapy.

Positron emission tomography creates an image of sections of the body using a special camera that follows the progress of an injected radioactive tracer.

Researchers used the scans to examine the women's resting brain metabolism as well as the blood flow to their brains as they did a short-term memory exercise.

Silverman said the findings suggested PET scans could be used to monitor the effects of chemotherapy on brain metabolism. Since the scans already are used to monitor patients for tumor response to therapy, the additional tests would be easy to add, he said.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, with some 211,000 new cases diagnosed each year, the statement said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15136453/ns/health-cancer/t/chemo-brain-can-last-years/#.U63hDHC9KSM

From around the web

Sleep Apnea Sufferers Choose APAPs – Auto-titrating CPAPs (Easy Breathe)

Say “Ahh” to the Spa—It’s Time to Unwind in New Jersey (New Jersey Tourism)

Tour these great estates in Connecticut (CT Visit)

Florida Zipline Gives Guests an Experience to Remember (Experience Kissimmee)

Millennials Are Drinking So Much Wine They're Changing How It's Sold (The Daily Meal)

30 Secret Restaurant Recipes Revealed (Food Network)

What's measured in a blood cell count?

If you're undergoing certain cancer treatments that could cause low blood cell counts, your doctor will likely monitor your blood cell counts regularly using a test called a complete blood count (CBC). Low blood cell counts are detected by examining a blood sample taken from a vein in your arm.

When checking your blood cell count, your doctor is looking at the numbers and types of:

White blood cells. These cells help your body fight infection. A low white blood cell count (leukopenia) leaves your body more open to infection. And if an infection does develop, your body may be unable to fight it off.
Red blood cells. Red blood cells carry oxygen throughout your body. Your red blood cells' ability to carry oxygen is measured by the amount of hemoglobin in your blood. If your level of hemoglobin is low, you're anemic and your body works much harder to supply oxygen to your tissues. This can make you feel fatigued and short of breath.
Platelets. Platelets help your blood to clot. A low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) means your body can't stop itself from bleeding.


What's being counted	What's normal	What's concerning
White blood cells	3,500 to 10,500	Below 1,000
Hemoglobin	13.5 to 17.5 for men 12 to 15.5 for women	Below 8
Platelets	150,000 to 450,000	Below 20,000

What causes low blood cell counts?

Cancer-related causes of low blood cell counts include:

Chemotherapy. Certain chemotherapy drugs can damage your bone marrow — the spongy material found in your bones. Your bone marrow makes blood cells, which grow rapidly, making them very sensitive to the effects of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy kills many of the cells in your bone marrow, but the cells recover with time. Your doctor can tell you whether your specific chemotherapy treatment and dose will put you at risk of low blood cell counts.
Radiation therapy. If you receive radiation therapy to large areas of your body and especially to the large bones that contain the most bone marrow, such as your pelvis, legs and torso, you might experience low levels of red and white blood cells.
Cancers of the blood and bone marrow. Blood and bone marrow cancers, such as leukemia, grow in the bone marrow and don't allow normal blood cells to develop.
Cancers that spread (metastasize). Cancer cells that break off from a tumor can spread to other parts of your body, including your bone marrow. The cancerous cells can displace other cells in your bone marrow, making it difficult for your bone marrow to produce the blood cells your body needs. This is an unusual cause of low blood cell counts.

Why is it important to monitor your blood cell counts?

Low blood cell counts can lead to serious complications that may delay your next round of treatment. Monitoring your blood cell counts allows your doctor to prevent or reduce your risk of complications.

The most-serious complications of low blood cell counts include:

Infection. With a low white blood cell count and, in particular, a low level of neutrophils (neutropenia), a type of white blood cell that fights infection, you're at higher risk of developing an infection. And if you develop an infection when you have a low white blood cell count, your body can't protect itself. Infection can lead to death in severe cases.

Even a mild infection can delay your chemotherapy treatment, since your doctor may wait until your infection is cleared and your blood cell counts go back up before you continue. Your doctor may also recommend medication to increase your body's production of white blood cells.
Anemia. A low red blood cell count is anemia. The most common symptoms of anemia are fatigue and shortness of breath. In some cases fatigue becomes so severe that you must temporarily halt your cancer treatment or reduce the dose you receive.

Anemia can be relieved with a blood transfusion or with medication to increase your body's production of red blood cells.
Bleeding. Low numbers of platelets in your blood can cause bleeding. You might bleed excessively from a small cut or bleed spontaneously from your nose or gums. Dangerous internal bleeding can occur.

A low platelet count can delay your treatment. You may have to wait until your platelet levels go up in order to continue with chemotherapy or to have surgery

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-treatment/ART-20046192

This document is for informational purposes

and is not intended to be a substitute for

the advice of a doctor or healthcare pro

fessional or a

recommendation for any particular treatment plan. Like any print

ed material, it may become out of date over time. It is importa

nt that you rely on the

advice of a doctor or a healthcare prof

essional for your specific condition.

Patients can help prevent some of these side effects.

To decrease the chances of infections, good oral and body

hygiene are essential. Patients should also stay away from people with colds or other

infections.

Patients should also avoid activities that may increase the chance of bleeding, such as

the use of razors, nail clippers, or flossing teeth. Brushing teeth regularly is okay with

a soft bristle toothbrush. Patients with dentures should make sure their dentures fit

properly.

Patients should avoid straining while going to the restroom. This can cause

hemorrhoids and bleeding. A stool softener may be required.

Patients should check their temperature once a day. This may help in early detection

of infections. If the temperature is above 100.5ºF, they should call the Oncology

department and talk to the chemo nurse or their physician.

Hair Loss

Hair loss is another side effect of chemotherapy. This is also known as “alopecia.”

Cells in the hair follicles are responsible for hair growth and maintenance. Because

these cells divide rapidly, they are affected by chemotherapy meds

Sore Throat and Mouth

Some chemotherapy meds can harm fast growing cells. The cells lining the inside of

the mouth and throat divide rapidly. They are also continuously exposed to infections

from the food we eat.

Mouth and throat problems may include:

•

Dry mouth

•

Changes in taste and smell

•

Infections of your gums, teeth, or tongue

•

Mouth sores

•

Increased sensitivity to hot or cold foods

•

Trouble eating and swallowing when your mouth and/or throat is very sore.

Chemotherapy can cause inflammation and infections inside the

mouth. This condition, known as “stomatitis,” makes swallowing

difficult and painful.

Diarrhea

Because the cells lining the intestines and colon divide

constantly, they can be affected by chem

otherapy.

This can cause diarrhea. Diarrhea is frequent bowel movements

that may be soft, loose, or watery. Diarrhea can also be caused

by infections or drugs used to treat constipation. Increasing fluid

intake usually keeps the patient hydrated.

If constipation becomes a significant problem, a physician may recommend or

prescribe stool softeners. This helps decrease the chances of hemorrhoid formation

and bleeding.

Effect on the Skin and Nails

Because the cells lining the skin divide fairly rapidly, they are susceptible to

chemotherapy. This can cause skin itching, dryness, redness, peeling, darker veins

and increased reaction to the sun.

Your nails may become dark, turn yellow, or become brittle and cracked. Sometimes

your nails will loosen and fall off, but new nails will grow back

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/tutorials/chemotherapyintroduction/oc059105.pdf

Other words you may hear:

Myelosuppression - a decrease in the production of blood cells, which may lead to low blood count.
Pancytopenia - a lowering of all three types of blood cells; red blood cells, platelets, and white blood cells, which may lead to low red blood cell count, low blood platlet count, and/or low white blood cell count.
Anemia - a decrease in the number of red blood cells (RBC), which may lead to low red blood count.
Thrombocytopenia - a decrease in the number of platelets (PLT), which may lead to low blood platlet count.
Leukopenia - a decrease in the total number of white blood cells (WBC), which may lead to low white blood cell count.
Neutropenia - a decrease in the number of neutrophils, one type of white blood cell, which may lead to low white blood cell count.
Granulocytopenia - a decrease in the number of granulocytes, the group of white blood cells that include neutrophils, basophils and eosinophils, which may lead to low white blood cell count

For patients receiving chemotherapy, there is an increased risk of infection due to a low white blood cell count (neutropenia) caused by a toxic effect of chemotherapy on the bone marrow.
For patients receiving chemotherapy, there is an increased risk of infection due to a low white blood cell count (neutropenia) caused by a toxic effect of chemotherapy on the bone marrow.

Here's a partial list of long term effects of chemotherapy and radiation as researched by Nancy Keene:

absent teeth.
abnormally small teeth (microdontia).
short or thin roots.
small crowns.
malocclusion (poor bite).
poor enamel.
incomplete calcification.
frequent cavities.
enlarged pulp chambers.
over-retention of primary teeth.

http://www.ped-onc.org/survivors/leteeth.html

Chemo cause tooth loss
http://csn.cancer.org/node/236574

Chemo linked to infertility
http://news.cancerconnect.com/sterility/

I just read that scientists worldwide will be looking for
genetic mutations (i.e.: DNA "mistakes") associated with
cancer.

What a waste of time and money. We already have the
answer to 99% of cancer. It's all in what we put in our
mouths, which creates a toxic environment for cancer to
grow and thrive. Simple.

If you doubt what I'm saying, take a quick look at the
last 100 years of US history:

The year 1900: Cancer caused only 3 out 100 deaths in the
US. Breast cancer was basically unheard of.

- Food manufacturers began developing "better living
through chemistry" products like artificial sweeteners
(saccharin), taste additives (MSG), partially hydrogenated
vegetable shortening and margarine.

- Refined white sugar (acid and fat on a spoon) replaced
molasses as the leading sweetener in the American diet.

1911: A grain-milling process was discovered that strips
away the germ and outer layers of wheat grain (where the
nutrients are). The result: Nutrient-poor, acid-creating
white bread and refined white flour.

1921: General Mills invented a character named Betty
Crocker to convince Americans to eat more processed foods
(and increase the company's stock value).

1935: Only one case of cancer had been reported in the
last 50 years by the Inuit (Eskimo) people of Alaska and
Canada. After they began eating processed foods, their
cancer rate exploded until it equaled that of the US by the
1970's.

1938: From now until 1990, the avera ge male sperm count
will drop by nearly half, and testicular cancer will triple.

1949: After being unheard of 49 years ago, the breast
cancer rate is now 58 out of every 100,000 women.

1950: From now to the year 2000, the overall cancer rate
will go up 55%. (Lung cancer due to smoking is only 1/4 of
that.) Breast and colon cancer will go up 60%, brain
cancer 80% and childhood cancer will increase 20%.

1970: Americans spend $6 billion on fast food. By 2001,
that will skyrocket to $110 billion.

1971: The US Congress declares its "War on Cancer" which
has done virtually nothing to stop the growing rates of
cancer in the US in the next 30+ years.

- The US Department of Agriculture wrote "An Evaluation of
Research in the US on Human Nutrition; Report No. 2,
Benefits From Nutrition Research" which blamed the lack of
nutrients in the American diet for most major health
problems. That report was banned from public view for 21
years, reportedly at the insistence of the processed food
industry.

1973: From now to 1991, prostate cancer will go up 126%.

1982: Teenage boys drink twice as much milk as soda. By
2002, they will be drinking twice as much soda as milk.

1990: From now to 2005, over 120,000 new processed foods
will be developed to join the 320,000 processed foods
already on the store shelves.

2000: Cancer is now the cause of 20 out of 100 of all
deaths in the US, compared to just 3 out of 100 in 1900.

2001: Americans spend $110 billion a year on fast food.
Every single day, 1 out of 4 Americans eats at least one
meal in a fast food restaurant.

2005: Breast cancer, which was extremely rare back in
1900 and only affected 58 out of 100,000 women in 1949, now
strikes 1 in 3 women in the US. That means that in just 55
short years, it has gone up 568 times what it was. Scary.
Must be a virus, huh? Or our DNA has changed a lot, huh?
Momma Mia...

History speaks for itself. If you want to be alive into
your golden years and stay pain and disease-free, stay the
hell away from processed foods of any kind. That includes
boxed, bagged, canned or jarred foods, fast food, soda and
bottled sweetened drinks.

Jack La Lanne (who is 93, but looks about 70) has an easy
rule. Here it is: "If man made it, don't eat it."

in active production in North America, scientists estimate that everyone alive today carries within their body at least 700 chemicals, most of which have not been well studied. The effects of this growing burden of chemicals are not seen or felt until years later, when we come down with a chronic illness.

A study published in 2008 reported that 90-95% of cancer cases are caused by environmental toxins, and that cancer can be prevented with major lifestyle changes.

Sources of Chemical Exposures:

The following summary exposes the sources of chemicals in our everyday lives that can lead to disease.

Food

Food producers use any number of 14,000 different laboratory-made chemicals to make food look fresher and increase its shelf-life.

In an attempt to improve the flavor of food, chemicals like MSG and artificial sweeteners like Aspartame may also be added.

Chemical pesticides and herbicides used to produce conventionally-grown crops can be found in processed foods.

Water

In the book Detoxify or Die, author Sherry A. Rogers reports that the average city water contains over 500 different chemicals._

A study from Goethe University Frankfort found that drinking bottled water leeches over 24,000 different chemicals into your body.

Even home filtration systems like distilled or reverse osmosis do not eliminate all chemicals from the water.

Air

A 2013 press release by the World Health Organization declared that outdoor air pollution is a leading cause of cancer deaths

The Environmental Protection Agency has found that indoor levels of pollutants are “2 to 5 times higher – and occasionally more than 100 times higher – than outdoor pollutant levels.”

After testing air quality in 200 of the most popular cars in 2011, researchers found high concentrations of more than 275 chemicals associated with birth defects, learning impairment, liver toxicity and cancer.

http://www.endalldisease.com/study-1-million-chemicals-average-human-body-sweating-can-detoxify/

In his book, When Healing Becomes a Crime, Kenny Ausubel notes that in a trial on a chemotherapy drug tested for leukemia, a whopping 42% of the patients died directly from the toxicity of the chemotherapy drug!

Here are the facts. In 1942, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center quietly began to treat breast cancer with these mustard gas derivatives. No one was cured. Chemotherapy trials were also conducted at Yale around 1943 where 160 patients were treated. Again, no one was cured.

According to Dr. John Diamond, M.D., “A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy.”

http://healthwars.co/286/cancer/chemotherapy-kills-more-people-than-it-cures/

Narrowed Path Healing

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

TOXIC EFFECTS OF CHEMOTHERAPY

The Basics

How Effective is Chemotherapy?

What's measured in a blood cell count?

What causes low blood cell counts?

Why is it important to monitor your blood cell counts?

Sources of Chemical Exposures:

Food

Water

Air

Blog Archive