Can a class of drugs commonly prescribed to help lower cholesterol levels protect against breast cancer? A study recently presented at the European Society of Cardiology conference in Barcelona, Spain, offers interesting results.
Researchers from Aston Medical School, Aston University, in Birmingham, United Kingdom, determined that statins can nearly cut the risk of the disease in half, as well as lower mortality rates.
“This is the most conclusive and direct evidence as yet to confirm the link between high cholesterol and breast cancer, a topic that has been fascinating researchers for the past few years,” Rahul Potluri, physician, senior author on the study, said in a press release.
“We previously found an association between having high cholesterol and developing breast cancer, so we designed this study to follow up patients longitudinally and address the relationship more robustly.” (more…)
Ever since chemotherapy and radiation became the ‘standard of care,’ oncology has been in the Dark Ages, often causing more harm and human suffering than it alleviates. Could the scientific community finally be waking up to the incomparable cancer-killing power of foods to cure what conventional treatment only makes worse?
One of the most important discoveries in biology and medicine of the past fifteen years is that cancer stem cells are largely responsible for the failure of conventional cancer treatment. These cells, which represent a small population of tumor cells (~ 1:1000), are cancer cells characterized by stem cell properties such as self-renewal and the ability to give rise to all cell types found in a particular cancer sample. These cells drive tumor development, progression, metastasis and drug resistance and are highly resistant to chemotherapy and radiotherapy
Differences in the bacterial make up of breast tissue in those with breast cancer point to the existence of a “microbiome” within the breast as well as the prospect of probiotic use in the battle against this disease.
What if chemotherapy actually helped to spread cancer? Many within the medical and research communities are becoming emboldened to speak out against outdated and failed healing modalities still in use today.
UK Headlines were made in 2015 when a study in the British Journal of Cancer was published claiming 1 in 2 women and 1 in 3 men will develop cancer at some point in their lives. Two years later on June 20, 2017, a report titled Canadian Cancer Statistics 2017 released by the Canadian Cancer Society stated for males, the lifetime cancer risk is 49% and for females it is 45%.
Another study showing the dangers and ineffectiveness of chemotherapy has just been published and it has gone viral. The study titled Neoadjuvant chemotherapy induces breast cancer metastasis through a TMEM-mediated mechanism was published in the journal Science Translational Medicine describing how chemotherapy could allow cancer to spread, and trigger more aggressive tumors. By studying the process of intravasation, or entry of cells into the vasculature, the study’s authors discovered that chemotherapy, in addition to targeting tumor cells, can also increase intravasation. The authors found that chemotherapy increased groups of cells known as tumor microenvironment of metastasis (TMEM) which collectively usher tumor cells into the body’s vasculature. The study discovered that several types of chemotherapy can increase the amounts of TMEM complexes and circulating tumor cells in the bloodstream. Why is this important? The chances of survival dramatically decrease once cancer begins to metastasize through the bloodstream and effect other organs and systems.
Is the recent study the only one painting chemotherapy as a dangerous treatment option? In 2016 a groundbreaking study was commissioned by Public Health England and published in the journal Lancet Oncology. The study represented the first time that national data has been gathered together and analyzed for 30-day mortality after chemotherapy. It found that a larger proportion of patients are actually dying after chemotherapy than in the clinical trials carried out by the drug companies. The death rate in the clinical trials of drug treatments for lung cancer was 0.8%, but in the present study the reality shows it is actually 3%.
What happens when the extended survival rate of chemotherapy as a cancer treatment is studied beyond 30 days? An Australian study published in the journal Clinical Oncology found the contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the US. In fact, the study concluded by stating:
“To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.”
By now, many are beginning to understand that one of the problems with chemotherapy is that it doesn’t address the underlying cause(s) of cancer. Chemotherapy originated from an idea and consciousness that was far from idealistic. The whole generation of chemotherapeutic drugs that are being used today, and there are over one hundred of them, developed from poisonous nerve gas created for warfare. As reported in 2012 by Green Med Info, cancer is the second leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet much of the medical and research communities are still in the dark ages when it comes to treating and understanding it. However, in the age of information, great strides are being made by doctors and researchers who are going against the grain of the failed convention ‘wisdom’ in cancer treatment. In addition, individuals are beginning to take responsibility by educating themselves. GreenMedInfo has been at the forefront with the world’s most widely referenced, evidence-based natural medical resource database containing over 30,000 abstracts and articles.
Jefferey Jaxen is a researcher, independent investigative journalist, writer and voice for health freedom on the front lines of society’s shift towards higher consciousness. Visit his website here to learn more.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
Internal Site Commenting is limited to members.
Disqus commenting is available to everyone.
Cancers figure among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Between 2005 and 2015, cancer cases increased by 33 percent and the number of new cases is expected to rise by about 70% over the next just two decades under the current global disease promoting paradigm.
Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent forms of cancer and the idea that while trying to make it better we are actually making it WORSE is undoubtedly terrifying for everyone.
Researchers tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine. The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the first line of medical intervention against breast cancer — it is the first treatment prescribed to patients who are diagnosed with the disease. Usually, the strategy is to use the poison to shrink the tumor before surgery, when the bulk of the cancer is cut off.
Cancer cells are different from every other cell type in the body because they are dividing very quickly and uncontrollably. Chemotherapy harms other cells in the body that also divide quickly — such as cells in the hair follicles, which is why chemo patients often lose their hair. However, the main tumor body is not necessarily the most dangerous aspect of cancer. 90% of patients that pass away from cancer do so because the cancer has spread throughout the body to other organs and tissues. For example, breast cancer cells can get into the bloodstream and get transported to the bones, to the lungs and to the liver. This process in known as metastasis and is unquestionably the most dangerous side of cancer. Unfortunately, in many cases after the cancer is removed and the patient undergoes more chemotherapy there will be signs that some cancer cells have escaped the surgery and have started growing elsewhere. It might take a long time — even decades is some cases, but metastasis is sadly a very common occurrence.
The authors of the study in STM use an interesting and relatively novel marker of metastasis which is called tumor microenvironment of metastasis — TMEM for short. Each TMEM site is a spot where cancer cells are likely to make a transition between the tissue they are from and the bloodstream — which acts as a very effective transportation system to carry cancer cells throughout the body. Ingeniously, in this particular piece of research scientists use three molecules that are known to be very highly present at TMEM sites. Therefore, counting the number of spots where these molecules are highly expressed is a by-proxy way of measuring how many opportunities breast cancer cells have to make that fatal move out of the breast tissue and into the bloodstream. The study also shows that neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases the number of TMEM sites — which means there is an increased risk for cancer cells to metastasize. Given these data it is unsurprising that in the mice that are used as a model in this study the use of chemotherapy leads to an increased amount of metastasis.
Peter Glidden, BS, ND in the video above describes the 12-year meta-analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology which observed adults who had developed cancer and treated with chemotherapy. The 12-year study looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult.
A new study published this month (July 2017) confirms what most who are not entrenched in mainstream oncology’s viewpoint of cancer treatment by chemo drugs have already pointed out: Chemo drugs are carcinogenic, and they actually cause cancer.
This is actually the second study published in modern times showing that the very drugs prescribed for cancer treatment, actually cause cancer.
NPR science correspondent and author of the new book,“Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions,” Richard Harris has shined a light on the many issues that plague the world of scientific research — and he’s exposed a dark industry secret: Many studies are actually totally worthless junk. According to Harris, thousands of breast cancer studies are totally useless because they were conducted using the wrong type of cells. Rather than using breast cancer cells, researchers had been using wrongly identified cells that were actually melanoma cancer cells — meaning thousands of papers had investigated and experimented with the wrong disease.
“It’s impossible to know how much this sloppy use of the wrong cells has set back research into breast cancer,” Harris stated. But breast cancer studies are not the only ones that are affected by this dilemma — virtually every area of scientific research is plagued by the malady of junk studies with findings that cannot be replicated. (more…)
Everyone knows that eating vegetables has profound health benefits. But, like all foods, not all vegetables are created the same. Some are better than others in terms of nutritional content, and overall contribution to vibrant health. If you look more closely at their phytochemical [plant-based chemical] content, or the growing amount of research into their specific effects on the body and disease, a few vegetables appear to be downright “miracle” foods!
One such group of veggies are those of the Brassica family; commonly known as cruciferous. These include broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, kale, radish, rutabaga, turnip and even arugula.
Sulforaphane is a phytochemical abundant in cruciferous vegetables, and it’s been getting a ton of attention from researchers. But it all starts with glucoraphanin.
Sulforaphane is produced when the enzyme myrosinase converts glucoraphanin, a glucosinolate (natural compound found in some plants), through a chemical reaction induced by damage to the plant, such as cutting or chewing. As such, glucoraphanin is known as the precursor to sulforaphane.
Chances are you can find fresh blackberries pretty easily in your local market. But black raspberries (Rubus occidentalis) are a different story. And they are worth seeking out.
All berries are good sources of antioxidants but black raspberries take top prize. According to Oregan State University Department of Food Science and Technology they contain almost three times the antioxidants of blackberries and more than six times the antioxidants of red raspberries.
They are also extremely high in anthocyanins, the antioxidant compounds that give purple foods their rich, unique color. And they are rich in ellagic acid, a powerful anti-cancer, anti-viral, and anti-bacterial compound.
In a minute you’ll see how to tell a black raspberry from a blackberry in your market. But first here are six amazing and proven benefits of black raspberries.