No question: cancer is attracting a lot of scientific enquiry right now. Mostly it’s about money but there are some intelligent guys in this too.
Not everyone belongs to the Cancer Mafia!
You have to watch the media carefully. They tell most of the lies and they are, without doubt, controlled by Big Pharma interests.
There was a huge “media storm” last year, telling us that antioxidants, especially vitamins C and E, selenium and beta-carotenes, are dangerous and “cause” cancer. In fact, as I blogged recently, there is a refreshing new study that shows without question they are not and may well reduce the incidence of deadly pancreatic cancer by TWO THIRDS.
It’s true that conventional researchers are getting on the trail of diet as a cause of cancer. But they still don’t really get it.
They are thinking in terms of factors in the diet which are “carcinogenic” (cancer causing). It’s what is NOT in the diet that’s carcinogenic! If there are no decent nutrients in the junk diet, how can the body have a healthy defence system and ward off
what is really quite a common challenge to the body. Cancer cells, we know, are everywhere but easily mopped up on a daily basis by the immune system.
In the new study, researchers led by Dr. Andrew Hart of the University of East Anglia tracked the long-term health of more than 23,500 people, aged 40 to 74, who entered the study between 1993 and 1997. Each participant kept a food diary that detailed the types, amount and method of preparation for every food they ate for seven days.
After 10 years, 49 participants (55 percent of whom were male) had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. By 2010, the number of participants diagnosed with pancreatic cancer increased to 86 (44 percent were men).
The researchers found that people with the highest dietary intake of selenium were half as likely to develop pancreatic cancer as those with the lowest intake. Those who consumed the highest dietary intake of all three antioxidants — selenium and vitamins C and E — were 67 percent less likely to develop pancreatic cancer compared to those with the lowest intake.
That’s down two thirds.
The study was published online July 23, 2012, in the journal Gut.
You might wonder where studies like this get funded? Certainly it wasn’t by the pharmaceutical industry. But it shows, as I said, there are serious efforts to improve the conventional approach to cancer treatments.
But the humbug goes on. No question: there are people who don’t want alternatives to succeed.
For example, if you go to Wikipedia and type in low dose naltrexone (a good therapy I featured in my own book “Cancer Research Secrets”), you find they quote an idiot called Steven Novella, a professor from Yale University School of Medicine, who claims the efficacy of this treatment is pseudo-science, unsupported by clinical research.
Yet Novella doesn’t know any science. He’s the pseudo!!
Contrast what he says with en entirely different take, from a 2011 study, published in ScienceDaily (Sep. 2, 2011). We are told that researchers at The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania have discovered the mechanism by which a low dose of the opioid antagonist naltrexone (LDN), an agent used clinically (off-label) to treat cancer and autoimmune diseases, exerts a profound inhibitory effect on cell proliferation.
It slows down cell multiplication, which is bad news for tumors (good news for patients).
In fact, despite Novella and his phoney falsehoods, the antitumor effects of opioid antagonists has been known since 1981, from the work of Drs. Zagon and McLaughlin (Life Sci. 28:1095-1102, 1981), and the first full reports about opioid antagonists modulating growth processes occurred in 1983.1
This led to the hypothesis that endogenous opioid systems play a role in cancer, development, and cellular renewal. 2 These papers revealed that a short-term opioid receptor blockade with low dose naltrexone for a short time each day (4-6 hr) with LDN provided a subsequent window of time (18-20 hr) for the increased levels of endogenous opioids and opioid receptors to interface and elicit a robust functional response: inhibition of cell proliferation.
According to study co-author Dr. McLaughlin, LDN expands our arsenal of biological-based treatment modalities to bring about a change in disease states reliant on cell proliferation. This information also provides the basis for a rational approach to the design of diagnostic tools and measures of therapeutic efficacy.
In the words of Dr. Donahue, who has devoted a concentrated effort on improving the health of women through research explains: “This study joins a series of other investigations demonstrating that both LDN and OGF offer powerful treatments to combat a devastating cancer that strikes over 20,000 women in the U.S. each year and stands as the 5th leading cause of cancer-related deaths in females.”3
Go ahead, sue me Novella! You lousy, fake scientist.I prefer Donahue.
Steven Novella also writes that claims of treating a wide range of diseases with different etiologies should be a red flag to be skeptical about these claims, which are likely to be “bogus treatment with claims that are literally too good to be true.”
Meaning, that if it does any good, it must be a trick–because our lousy stuff doesn’t do any good at all! Ha!
If you want the real facts, to get yourself armed against cancer (don’t wait till you are told you have it!), go to this page and read more:
1. (Science 221:671-673; ibid, 221:1179-1180).
2. (Life Sci. 35:409-416, 1984; ibid, 35:2057-2064, 1984).
3. (Amer. J. Physiol. 296:R1716-1725, 2009; ibid, 297:R1154-R1161, 2009; Gynecol. Oncol. 122:382-388, 2011; J. Cancer Therapy 2:110-124, 2011; Exp. Biol. Med., in press, 2011)
Professor Keith Scott-Mumby