Here is an interesting article and some breast cancer research.  I would love to hear what you think.  Would you try it?

(NaturalNews) Seasoning food with turmeric and black pepper can do more than just spice up a meal. Researchers at the University of Michigan (U-M) Comprehensive Cancer Center have found that the compounds curcumin, which is derived from turmeric, and piperine, derived from black pepper, could play an important role in preventing and even treating breast cancer.

 Previous research has already provided evidence that curcumin and piperine may be potential cancer treatments. However, the new U-M study, just published online in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, is the first to suggest exactly how these natural spice compounds could prevent cancer. The research shows curcumin and piperine target stem cells (unspecialized cells that can give rise to any type of cell in an organ).

This is of major significance because cancer stem cells comprise the small number of cells inside a tumor that fuel the growth of malignancies. Current chemotherapy agents are useless against these cells — that’s why cancer can recur and spread despite rounds of heavy duty, toxic chemo. But if cancer stem cells could be eliminated and/or their growth shut down, cancer should be controlled.

 ”If we can limit the number of stem cells, we can limit the number of cells with potential to form tumors,” lead author Madhuri Kakarala, M.D., Ph.D., a clinical lecturer in internal medicine at the U-M Medical School and a research investigator at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, said in a statement to the media. And the new study shows curcumin and piperine work along these lines.

The spice derivatives are able to do what chemo can’t — they limit the self-renewal of stem cells. Killing cancer cells with zero toxicity to healthy cells For the U-M study, the research team applied a solution of curcumin and piperine to cell cultures at the equivalent of about 20 times the potency of what a person would take in through diet.

Then a series of tests were performed on the cells to look at markers for breast stem cells and the effect curcumin and piperine had on the levels of stem cells. The result? Piperine enhanced the effects of curcumin and the compounds interrupted the self-renewal process that is the hallmark of stem cells which initiate cancer.

 More good news: the compounds had no effect on the normal process of cell development known as cell differentiation. That means the spice compounds are not toxic to normal breast tissue.

“Women at high risk of breast cancer right now can choose to take the drugs tamoxifen or raloxifene for prevention, but most women won’t take these drugs because there is too much toxicity. The concept that dietary compounds can help is attractive, and curcumin and piperine appear to have very low toxicity,” Dr. Kakarala stated. In addition, tamoxifen and raloxifene are designed to target estrogen. But not all breast cancers are estrogen driven. In fact, the most aggressive and deadly forms of breast cancer that are more likely to occur in women with strong family histories of the disease or with a specific genetic susceptibility to breast cancer are typically not affected by estrogen and tend to be difficult to treat.

But due to the fact curcumin and piperine limit the self-renewal of stem cells, the spice compounds could impact malignancies whether they are estrogen sensitive or not. Dr. Kakarala and colleagues are moving forward on an initial Phase 1 clinical trial in people to determine the best tolerated dose of curcumin and piperine. The study is expected to start signing on volunteer research subjects in spring of 2010.

And why do you think women in the US have highest disease rate world-wide?????

Radiation Treatment for Breast Cancer Causes Cancer in the Other Breast
by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Young women who receive radiation treatment after breast cancer surgery are significantly more likely to later develop cancer in the other breast than women who did not undergo such radiation.

The findings come from a study, published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, on more than 7,000 women who were treated for breast cancer in Netherlands between the years of 1970 and 1986. All study participants were diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 71.

Among study participants in general, the risk of developing cancer in the opposite breast (contralateral breast cancer) after treatment in the first breast was three to four times higher than the rate for new cases of breast cancer. This risk only went up with a number of other risk factors, including family predisposition or treatment with radiation or chemotherapy.

Researchers from the Erasmus Medical Center Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center in Rotterdam examined the cancer risk in women based on whether they were treated with radiation after a lumpectomy (partial breast removal) or mastectomy (complete breast removal). They found that women under the age of 45 who received radiation treatment after a lumpectomy were 1.5 times more likely to develop contralateral cancer than women who received post-mastectomy radiation treatment.

Similarly, the risk of contralateral breast cancer among all patients under the age of 45 increased by 9 percent if they had received radiation treatment. Among women treated before the age of 35, the increase in risk associated with radiation therapy was far higher — 78 percent.

When the participants were examined all together and not divided by age, there was no correlation between radiation treatment and increased cancer risk.

Radiation treatment is commonly used after the surgical removal of cancerous breast tissue in order to kill any cancerous cells that might remain. It is used most often after any lumpectomy, after any mastectomy of a breast that contained a tumor larger than five centimeters, or in any cancer that has spread to the lymph nodes.

The chemotherapy drugs cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil and methotrexate also increased the risk of contraleteral cancer, but only after five years. Within the first five years after treatment, there was no difference in contralateral cancer rates between those who had received the drugs and those who had not.

To date, many researchers have assumed that high rates of contralateral breast cancer can be mostly attributed to the risk factors that contributed to the original cancer, such as genetic predisposition. This study is one of the first to suggest that cancer treatment itself might also increase risk.

That family predisposition affects breast cancer risk is fairly well accepted by researchers, and scientists have identified two genetic mutations in particular (BRCA1 and BRCA2) that seem to play a role. In the current study, the highest risk of contralateral cancer was seen among women who had three or more relatives who had already had breast cancer. But such predispositions appear to have the greatest effect in the presence of environmental risk factors.

In the current study, young women who had received post-lumpectomy radiation treatment and who also had a strong history of breast cancer in their family had their risk of contralateral cancer increased by 3.5 times.

The researchers did not test participants for the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

Study author Maartje J. Hooning said that her study has immediate implications for cancer treatment.

“[Although] radiation techniques of today will lead to a lower dose to the contralateral breast than the techniques presented in our study, treating clinicians should be aware of the existing dose-response relationship for risk of contralateral breast cancer. Especially in young women, the radiation dose to the contralateral breast should be kept as low as possible.”

Breast cancer is the world’s second most common and fifth most lethal cancer. Women in the United States have the highest rate of the disease worldwide.

Tell me what you think about the data and information on radiation testing and potential damage.  Leave a comment. 

Americans Exposed to Atomic Bomb Levels of Radiation through Medical Imaging, CT Scans, Mammograms
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) A new report released by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement reveals that Americans’ exposure to radiation has increased more than 600 percent over the last three decades. Most of that increase has come from patients’ exposure to radiation through medical imaging scans such as CT scans and mammograms.

Most patients have no awareness of the dangers of ionizing radiation due to medical imaging scans. Virtually no patients — and few doctors — realize that one CT scan exposes the body to the equivalent of several hundred X-rays (http://www.naturalnews.com/023582.html), for example. Most women undergoing mammograms have no idea that the radiation emitted by mammography machines actually causes cancer by exposing heart and breast tissue to dangerous ionizing radiation that directly causes DNA damage.

Even low doses of radiation can add up to significant increases in lifelong cancer risk. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2007) found that survivors of the 1945 atomic bombs unleashed on Japan during World War II still faced significant increases in lifetime cancer risk. And the levels of radiation to which these particular study subjects were exposed is equivalent to receiving only two or three CT scans, explains an ABC News story (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Cancer…).

Yes, it’s true: A couple of CT scans can expose your body to as much radiation as standing a few miles from an atomic bomb explosion. This is a simple scientific fact.
Is modern medicine priming the population for a wave of future cancers?
Exposure to CT scans and mammograms today can lead to cancer much later in life. As ABC News reports, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, says, “Radiation exposure from these scans is not inconsequential and can lead to later cancers.”

Thanks to the widespread use of medical imaging scans, hospitals are also becoming a major source of nuclear waste material. See the NaturalNews report on that topic here: http://www.naturalnews.com/025711.html

This material can be seized by terrorists and used to make dirty bombs. Thus, hospitals are now a major source for potential tools for terrorists.

The bottom-line question in all this is simple: Are medical imaging devices causing more harm than good? And do mammograms actually create future cancer patients by causing cancer in the breast? In my view, the answers to both these questions are a resounding YES. Medical imaging does more than just detect cancer, it also causes cancer! And that’s in the financial interests of the drug companies and cancer clinics that profit from treating cancer.

Here’s what other doctors, authors and health experts have to say on the subject of CT scans, mammograms and radiation:
Authors’ Quotes on Radiation and CT Scans
Below, you’ll find selected quotes from noted authors on the subject of Radiation and Ct Scans. Feel free to quote these in your own work provided you give proper credit to both the original author quoted here and this NaturalNews page.

After four years of work, it became disturbingly clear to the research team that the main cause of the rising rates of leukemia was medical radiation, in the form of diagnostic medical x-rays. The use of radiation in cancer treatment employs high-intensity x-rays. Much higher doses are involved in cancer treatment than in diagnostic x-rays, because the purpose is to kill cells, or at least cripple their ability to reproduce. While a typical diagnostic X-ray might deliver one or two rads (radiation absorbed doses) of radiation, a six-week course of radiotherapy delivers about 5,000 rads.
- Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the True Source of Healing by John Robbins
- Available on Amazon.com

Do you know, however, that one whole body scan may be equivalent to the radiation received during 500 chest x-rays? Any amount of radiation exposure damages cellular DNA, thereby increasing the risk of cancer and premature aging. Companies promoting these ct scans don’t mention the radiation, but members of the Life Extension Foundation were told to avoid these body scans because of the health risks posed by this excess amount of radiation.
- Disease Prevention and Treatment by The Life Extension Editorial Staff
- Available on Amazon.com

It is foolish to believe every person entering the cancer era of their lives, from age 50 on, should continually be subjected to screening radiation (X-rays, mammograms, CT scans) and invasive needle biopsies, in a futile attempt to detect cancer at its earliest stage. Paradoxically, all these screening methods only serve to increase the risk for cancer. Among women with detected breast cancer, 88% have not spread and 12% are invasive tumors.
- You Don’t Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi
- Available on Amazon.com

After searching for possible causes, he came to the conclusion that work-related radiation had done the damage. We both have had patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who received radiation in the chest and then developed coronary disease. In cardiology, we call that radiation atherosclerosis. We believe x-rays damage endothelial cells. A prime example was a patient with multiple risk factors for CVD, including diabetes and high blood pressure. In 1995, prior to beginning New Cardiology therapy, he was treated with radiation for a neck tumor.
- Reverse Heart Disease Now: Stop Deadly Cardiovascular Plaque Before It’s Too Late by Stephen Sinatra, M.D. and James C., M.D. Roberts
- Available on Amazon.com

X-ray radiation from medical imaging and ct scans are also believed to increase the risk for cancer. A report issued by the Food & Drug Administration now suggests the risk for cancer from medical x-rays may be as much as 1 in 1,000. There are over 3 billion x-ray images taken annually in the world.
- You Don’t Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi
- Available on Amazon.com

The minimum radiation from a routine chest X-ray is 2 mrem. X-ray radiation accumulates in the body and it is well-known that ionizing radiation used in X-ray procedures causes gene mutation. We can only obtain guesstimates as to its impact on health from this high level of radiation. Experts manage to obscure the real effects in statistical jargon such as, “The risk for lifetime fatal cancer due to radiation exposure is estimated to be 4 in one million per 1,000 mrem.”
- Death by Medicine by Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD.
- Available on Amazon.com

Should these patients be exposed to repeated radiation mammography? [Clinical Oncology Royal College Radiology 18: 257-67, 2006] Even exposure to chest x-rays, particularly before the age of 20, heightens the risk for breast cancer with BRCA mutations. [Journal Clinical Oncology 24:3361-6, 2006]
Quietly, the radiation emitted during mammography was reduced as digital films were introduced. How many women have now developed breast cancer from these early screenings is unknown. Virtually every woman exposed to high-dose radiation mammography should have been placed on antioxidant therapy.
- You Don’t Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi
- Available on Amazon.com

We are all exposed to radiation in the form of medical x-rays. Cardiologists, for instance, are exposed to a considerable amount of radiation because of the nature of this work. We do fluoroscopy all the time, putting in pacemakers and cardiac catheterizations. Fluoroscopy uses x-rays to view parts of the body on a screen, similar to the screening your luggage undergoes when you pass through airport security.
- Reverse Heart Disease Now: Stop Deadly Cardiovascular Plaque Before It’s Too Late by Stephen Sinatra, M.D. and James C., M.D. Roberts
- Available on Amazon.com

British physician Alice Stewart has spent much of her life investigating the connection between low-level radiation and higher cancer risks. Most doctors have stopped using fetal x-rays since Stewart’s work showed that a significant increase in leukemia was found in the children of mothers who had prenatal x-rays taken. She has said she believes that the effects of background radiation coupled with exposure to x-rays may cause most childhood cancers.
- Empty Harvest by Dr Bernard Jenson and Mark Anderson
- Available on Amazon.com

Another treatment, radiation, can trigger neurological symptoms, limiting the amount that can be used to treat cancer. The response of normal brain tissue to radiation often does not appear for weeks or months. So when someone with cancer receives radiation, it can be difficult to tell whether the appearance of neurological symptoms some months later stems from the cancer or from the radiation.
- Keep Your Brain Young: The Complete Guide to Physical and Emotional Health and Longevity by Guy McKhann, and Marilyn Albert
- Available on Amazon.com

And a Wise Woman anti-cancer lifestyle offers many ways to stay cancer-free and prevent recurrence should you decide against adjuvant radiation. If you do choose radiation, it will most likely be a six-week course of therapy, and it can only be done once. (It is considered unsafe to use radiation therapy on the same breast twice). Radiation therapy can cause DNA damage, skin injuries (burns, discoloration, and permanent texture changes), nausea, appetite loss, hair loss, exhaustion, chest pain, pneumonia, and permanent damage to the lungs, heart, and ribs (known as late-stage injuries).
- Breast Cancer? Breast Health! The Wise Woman Way by Susun S. Weed
- Available on Amazon.com

X-rays are another type of radiation. This is the most common type of human poisoning. Most individuals are poisoned as a result of medical x-rays, which, when performed repeatedly, result in significant tissue damage. X-ray technicians, radiologists, orthopedists, chiropractors, chiropractic assistants, cardiologists, dentists, and dental assistants are highly vulnerable to developing radiation poisoning. High tension power lines are another type of poisoning. In this case the individual is being poisoned by electromagnetic radiation. Radiation may also emanate from broadcasting centers.
- Dr. Cass Ingram’s Lifesaving Cures by Dr. Cass Ingram
- Available on Amazon.com

History has many examples of how radiation use is strongly linked to an increase in cancer rates. Atomic bomb survivors in Japan have increased rates of leukemia and cancers of the breast, thyroid, lung, stomach and other organs, illustrating another example of how radiation causes cancer. In general, the breast, thyroid and bone marrow are most sensitive to the effects of ionizing radiation. Avoiding unnecessary medical x-rays is one of the best ways to reduce exposure to ionizing radiation.
- Probiotic Rescue: How You can use Probiotics to Fight Cholesterol, Cancer, Superbugs, Digestive Complaints and More by Allison Tannis
- Available on Amazon.com

Bross’s work in a special article titled “Low-Level Radiation: Just How Bad Is It?” The report concluded that it was difficult to accurately assess the hazards posed by the radiation used in x-rays and cancer therapy because of the political nature of the radiation issue. It was hard to get clarity about the dangers, Science noted, because the matter fell within “the domain of the atomic energy establishment.” It is perhaps only from within the nuclear establishment itself that the true dangers of medical radiation can ever be told.
- Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the True Source of Healing by John Robbins
- Available on Amazon.com

Damage from radiation exposure accumulates over your lifetime:
• Atomic bomb survivor (35 rads at epicenter): increase up to + 35
• Mammogram (0.5-1 rad): increase + 1 per exposure of each breast. One mammogram can double a 35-year-old woman’s breast cancer risk.
• Diagnostic x-rays for scoliosis (1.5-3 rads): increase +3 per exposure
• Fluoroscopy (7.5 rads each): increase +5 for each
• Radiation treatment (8,000 rads): increase +10 each
The younger you are when your breasts are exposed to radiation, the greater your risk.
- Breast Cancer? Breast Health! The Wise Woman Way by Susun S. Weed
- Available on Amazon.com

Exposure to electromagnetic energy from electric and electronic equipment has become a factor in modern life. Radiation protection is offered by amino acids cysteine and glutathione; Vitamins A, C, and E; minerals Selenium and Zinc. Russian clinical study reveals some benefit from Ginseng (Eleutherococcus senticosus (ES)). RADIATION SICKNESS. Caused by overexposure to radiation such as x-rays, television screens and to an atmosphere polluted by such disasters as Chernobyl.
- Bartram’s Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine: The Definitive Guide by Thomas Bartram
- Available on Amazon.com

It is claimed that the irradiated foods do not themselves become radioactive and thus are not introducing radiation to the consumer. The concern with food irradiation is that it may produce by-products that are carcinogenic and increase the incidence of leukemia and other types of cancer or disease of the liver and kidneys. These health problems may not become evident for 20 to 30 years. Most of us are very skeptical about radiation in general, whether it be x-rays or even microwaves, let alone gamma radiation of our food.
- Staying Healthy with Nutrition: The Complete Guide to Diet and Nutritional Medicine by Elson M. Haas, M.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

If this process was safe and effective for someone who was in remission, then why didn’t they give radiation to everyone, just to make sure cancer never attacked them? Why didn’t the doctors, their wives, and their children take radiation as a preventive measure? I pictured a radiation drive-thru like a fast-food window. They literally fried my mother’s chest with what I would later discover was an enormous amount of radiation therapy. When I saw the radiation burns on my mother’s chest, I wondered if no treatment at all would have been a better bet.
- The Cure: Heal Your Body, Save Your Life by Timothy Brantley
- Available on Amazon.com

This “background” radiation is a small amount. Medical x-rays used at the dentist to see teeth root health, x-rays used by physicians to investigate bone health and mammograms of the breast subject the body to radiation. Uranium miners and those living in areas close to nuclear weapons tests are exposed to higher levels of radiation. Ironically, some cancer treatments include radiation therapy to help kill cancer cells. Yet the radiation itself increases the risk of cancer. Historically, radiation was used to monitor patients with tuberculosis.
- Probiotic Rescue: How You can use Probiotics to Fight Cholesterol, Cancer, Superbugs, Digestive Complaints and More by Allison Tannis
- Available on Amazon.com

Low-radiation mammograms are safer mammograms, but less radiation means a fuzzier picture. Standard x-rays — rarely used any more for breasts-create an easy-to-interpret high-radiation image. Xerograms use half that radiation, but are twice as hard to read. Film-screen mammography, the latest very-low-radiation exam, gives an image that’s even more difficult to interpret. More than 10 percent of all screening mammograms done at one large center in 1992 couldn’t be read and had to be redone.
A 1994 study showed wide variation in the accuracy with which mammograms are interpreted.
- Breast Cancer? Breast Health! The Wise Woman Way by Susun S. Weed
- Available on Amazon.com

The higher frequency radiations, from x-rays to nuclear radiation, are clearly dangerous. Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into two categories. The first is ionizing radiation and includes x-rays, gamma rays, and nuclear radiation. Exposing our body to these highly reactive ions at certain levels can dramatically affect our atomic structure. Ionizing radiation can actually rip electrons from atoms and molecules and directly affect cell division and cell structure.
- Staying Healthy with Nutrition: The Complete Guide to Diet and Nutritional Medicine by Elson M. Haas, M.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

Screening mammograms are unsafe other ways, too: they expose sensitive breast tissues to radiation, and they increase your chances of having a biopsy and being overtreated for carcinoma in situ. Scientists agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. Cellular DNA in the breast is more easily damaged by very small doses of radiation than thyroid tissue or bone marrow; in fact, breast cells are second only to fetal tissues in sensitivity to radiation. And the younger the breast cells, the more easily their DNA is damaged by radiation.
- Breast Cancer? Breast Health! The Wise Woman Way by Susun S. Weed
- Available on Amazon.com

Radiation causes many undesirable internal reactions, especially in the most prolific tissues, such as the gastrointestinal tract and skin. Radiation therapy may affect the appetite, tastes, and the ability to eat. Radiation is cumulative, and many things may add to it, from color TV and microwaves to x-rays and fallout exposure. We need a good protective program! When living in areas with high background radiation, it is wise to take higher amounts of antioxidants regularly.
- Staying Healthy with Nutrition: The Complete Guide to Diet and Nutritional Medicine by Elson M. Haas, M.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

In the radiation oncology departments, cancer patients routinely undergo therapy with high intensity x-rays, particle beams, and other types of radiation. Although radiation therapy has been successful in treating certain types of cancers, there are many cancers that are not cured either by radiation or by a combination of radiation and other orthodox medical and surgical modalities. Doctors may have once had the key to curing cancer with energy. But something happened to that priceless knowledge.
- Vibrational Medicine: The #1 Handbook of Subtle-Energy Therapies by Richard Gerber, M.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

Radiation sickness can take many forms, including the exacerbation of existing disease states, and also differs in intensity depending on the degree of exposure to low or high levels of radiation. It is important to recognize that it is not just atomic explosions that create radiation hazards. Diagnostic x-rays, TV screens, and other apparently noninvasive sources need to be considered. It is beyond the scope of this book to explore the complexity of radiation sickness or the range of treatments available to treat the condition.
- Health from the Seas: Freedom from Disease by John Croft
- Available on Amazon.com

It is now known that radiation causes mutation of the important p53 suppressor gene. For this reason, I do not recommend postlumpectomy radiation. Even though it may decrease the risk of a local recurrence of cancer, it does not help to inhibit metastatic cancer. Recent findings show that women receiving mammograms should be cautious of overexposure to radiation emitted by equipment that is not professionally and regularly monitored. Such equipment can deliver doses of radiation far above what are assumed today to be safe levels.
- Herbal Medicine, Healing and Cancer: A Comprehensive Program for Prevention and Treatment by Donald R. Yance, j r.,C.N., M.H., A.H.G., with Arlene Valentine
- Available on Amazon.com
Sources for this story include:
• Americans’ Radiation Exposure Rises 6-Fold in 29 Years
- ABC News

• Overexposed: Imaging tests boost U.S. radiation dose
Reuters

There is so much we don’t know….share it with friends.

I received this information from a friend whose mother recently passed away. Apparently, this was caused by a medication that is deadly. Here are the details, and I suggest you pass it on to your loved ones and others.

Subject: Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

I would like to thank those of you who expressed condolences on the recent passing of my mother. She suffered a hemorrhagic stroke while she was driving home from my house on July 30th and passed away on August 3rd. My mother’s stroke and passing was an enormous shock to my family, because she did not have any symptoms or risk factors for a stroke. Just the week before she had gone to her doctor for a check up and received a clean bill of health.

She did, however, develop a cold while she was visiting me and had taken Alka Seltzer Cold Plus for 3 days. Since her passing, we have learned that Alka Seltzer is one of the many cold medicines that contains Phenylpropanolamine (PPA), which can cause hemorrhagic stokes or cerebral bleeding, even with the first use. I am forwarding a list of other medications that currently use PPA..

These medicines are supposedly being recalled but my mother just purchased this medication less than two weeks ago. Pharmaceutical companies have known about this danger for years, we unfortunately, did not. I urge you to review the list of medicines with PPA and avoid these medications.

All drugs containing PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE are dangerous.

You may want to try calling the 800 number listed on most drug boxes and inquire about a REFUND. Please read this CAREFULLY. Also, please pass this on to everyone you know. STOP TAKING anything containing this ingredient. It has been linked to increased hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in brain) among women ages 18-49 in the three days after starting use of the medication. Problems were not found in men, but the FDA recommended that everyone (even children) seek alternative medicine.’

 The following medications contain Phenylpropanolamine :-

1. Acutrim Diet Gum Appetite Suppressant

 2. Acutrim Plus Dietary Supplements

3 Acutrim Maximum Strength Appetite Control

4. Alka-Seltzer Plus Children’s Cold Medicine Effervescent

5. Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold medicine (Cherry or Orange )

6. Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold Medicine Original

7. Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold & Cough Medicine Effervescent

8. Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold & Flu Medicine

9. Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold & Sinus Effervescent

10. Alka Seltzer Plus Night-Time Cold Medicine

11. BC Allergy Sinus Cold Powder

12. BC Sinus Cold Powder

13. Comtrex Flu Therapy & Fever Relief

14. Day & Night Contac 12-Hour Cold Capsules

15. Contac 12 Hour Caplets

16. Coricidin D Cold, Flu & Sinus

17. Dexatrim Caffeine Free

18. Dexatrim Extended Duration

19. Dexatrim Gelcaps

20. Dexatrim Vitamin C/Caffeine Free

 21. Dimetapp Cold & Allergy Chewable Tablets

22. Dimetapp Cold & Cough Liqui-Gels

23. Dimeta pp DM Cold & Cough Elixir

24. Dimetapp Elixir

25. Dimetapp 4-Hour Liquid Gels

26. Dimetapp 4-Hour Tablets

27. Dimetapp 12-Hour Extentabs Tablets

28. Naldecon DX Pediatric Drops

29. Permathene Mega-16

30. Robitussin CF

31. Tavist-D 12-Hour Relief of Sinus & Nasal Congestion

32. Triaminic DM Cough Relief

33. Triaminic Expectorant Chest & Head

34. Triaminic Sy rup Co ld & ; Amp; Amp Allergy

35. Triaminic Triaminicol Cold & Cough

 I just found out and called the 800# on the container for Triaminic and they informed me that they are voluntarily recalling the following medicines because of a certain ingredient that is causing strokes and seizures in children:

1 Orange 3D Cold & Allergy Cherry (Pink)

2. 3D Cold & Cough Berry 3.

3D Cough Relief Yellow 3D Expectorant They are asking you to call them at 800-548-3708 with the lot number on the box so they can send you postage for you to send it back to them, and they will also issue you a refund.

If you know of anyone else with small children, PLEASE PASS THIS ON. THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF! DO PASS ALONG TO ALL ON YOUR MAILING LIST so people are informed. They can then pass it along to their families. To confirm these findings, please take time to check the following: http://www.fda. gov/cder/ drug/infopage/ ppa/

The use of mouthwashes that contain alcohol as an ingredient can drastically increase a person’s risk of cancers of the mouth, head and neck, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Australia’s University of Melbourne and University of Queensland School of Dentistry.

Researchers studied use of mouthwash among 3,210 people and compared it with rates of mouth, head and neck cancers.

“We see people with oral cancer who have no other risk factors than the use of [mouthwash containing alcohol], so what we’ve done is review all the evidence,” said lead researcher Michael McCullough, chair of the Australian Dental Association’s therapeutics committee,

The researchers found that all participants who used an alcohol-containing mouthwash at least once per day had a significantly increased risk of cancer, independent of other risk factors such as smoking or drinking alcoholic beverages. Among those who both used alcohol-containing mouthwash and regularly drank alcoholic beverages, the risk of cancers of the larynx, pharynx or oral cavity was five times that of people who drank but did not use mouthwash. The risk of cancer in people who smoked and used alcohol-containing mouthwashes was an astonishing nine times that of non-mouthwash-using smokers.

“Since this article, further evidence has come out,” McCullough said. “We believe there should be warnings. If it was a facial cream that had the effect of reducing acne but had a four to fivefold increased risk of skin cancer, no one would be recommending it.”

The body breaks down alcohol, also known as ethanol, into a carcinogenic compound called acetaldehyde. The researchers note that due to the way that mouthwash is swished around, acetaldehyde may thereby accumulate in the oral cavity.

In addition, the researchers believe that alcohol makes mucus membranes more permeable to other chemicals, allowing nicotine and other carcinogens increased access to the body’s tissues.

Hormone Replacement Therapy is near to my heart because the doctors pretty much made me take it before they would let me out of the hospital.  I was 36 years old.  Cancer Survivor speaker Sheila Ulrich, told them a day would come when HRT was found to be harmful.  Are we at that day? 

I didn’t know anything about HRT at the time, but something was nagging deep within to be cautious………………………………..

Now here we are in 2009…………….and what are we suspecting about HRT???  It is quite a controversy.

Tell me what you think. 

Hormone Replacement Therapy Doubles Risk of Breast Cancer, Women Warne to Stop HRT Drugs

by Mike Adams Natural News Editor

Drug companies can no longer deny the science: Breast cancer risk is doubled for women who take conventional Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) drugs.

That’s the conclusion of a new study conducted at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. There, researchers discovered that even though HRT drugs double a woman’s risk of breast cancer, that risk drops rapidly once she stops using the HRT drugs.

Notably, these increased cancer risk findings only apply to synthetic HRT drugs produced by Big Pharma. They do not apply to bio-identical hormones offered by compounding pharmacies and naturopathic physicians.

But bio-identical hormones are under assault by the FDA, which recently tried to outlaw them by threatening compounding pharmacies that were selling them as an alternative to conventional HRT drugs. Care to guess who was behind the FDA’s effort to crush the alternative hormones market? Wyeth, of course: The maker of Prempro, the conventional HRT drug. Wyeth petitioned the FDA to go after bio-identical hormones, and the FDA quickly obliged.

Read about the FDA’s threatening letter to compounding pharmacies here: http://www.naturalnews.com/023860.html

But it gets even more interesting: Wyeth was also recently caught directing the ghostwriting of medical journal articles even while refusing to disclose its own role in creating those articles. An investigation by Sen. Charles Grassley’s office revealed damning documentation showing the drug company was engaged in highly unethical and deceptive practices regarding medical journal articles. Read the details on that here: http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000614_…

Can you guess what drug those ghost-written medical journal articles were promoting? Prempro, of course, the HRT drug!

The HRT conspiracy unveiled

So let’s put the pieces of this puzzle together. We have a drug company, Wyeth, that sells a synthetic HRT drug known to double the risk of breast cancer. But instead of pulling the drug off the market, Wyeth files a petition with the FDA to eliminate the competition (bio-identical hormones).

At the same time, Wyeth organizes a campaign of ghost-written articles to be submitted to medical journals, touting the many benefits of HRT drugs and ignoring the 2002 research showing them to be correlated with higher risks of breast cancer. To deceive the scientific community, Wyeth purposely withholds any information about its own role in those papers, making readers believe they were authored by independent academics.

Are you starting to get the picture here?

My question is simple: How many women have died of breast cancer because of the actions of Wyeth? How many more women will suffer the ravages of chemotherapy or radiation therapy as a result of a disease that may have been accelerated by Big Pharma’s HRT drugs? And how long will this nation continue to tolerate the fraud of Big Pharma before cracking down on the corruption and crime taking place in this industry right now?

Women should be up in arms over this. They were lied to by yet another drug company, and the very government agency that was supposed to protect them (the FDA) sold them out and actually took aggressive action to eliminate natural alternatives, thereby contributing to the needless deaths of women from breast cancer.

These are not innocent administrative mistakes, folks: In my opinion, these are well-planned conspiracies between Big Pharma and the FDA that seek to maximize corporate profits at the expense of human lives. These are crimes against women, committed by some of the most powerful and insidious white-collar criminals this world has ever seen. And unlike Wall Street criminals who may cost you your savings, these Big Pharma / FDA criminals engage in actions that may cost you your life!

Why does the FDA continue to allow these HRT drugs to be sold if they double the risk of cancer? Can you imagine the outcry if a nutritional supplement were found to double the risk of cancer? It would be immediately banned, and the FDA would announce how it was outlawing the herb in order to “protect consumers.” But when it’s a drug that doubles cancer risk, the FDA does nothing.

Why do medical criminals go free while Wall Street criminals go to jail? Why has Big Pharma been allowed to operate with such deceptions for so long?

Because it makes so much easy money, that’s why. The drug companies have proven again and again that ethics will never stand in the way of profits.

NaturalNews is once again warning women to get off all synthetic HRT drugs. Always do so under the supervision of a naturopathic physician, of course, and if necessary, consider bio-identical hormones as a replacement. Do not subject yourself to the increased cancer risk of conventional HRT drugs. If you do, you may literally pay for it with your life.

The Experts Speak: Vitamin D and Breast Cancer

This activated form of vitamin D causes “cellular differentiation” — essentially the opposite of cancer. The following evidence indicates that vitamin D might have a protective role against breast cancer:
• Synthetic vitamin D-like molecules have prevented the equivalent of breast cancer in animals.
• Activated vitamin D appears to have antiestrogenic activity. J
• Both sunlight and dietary exposure to vitamin D have correlated with a reduced risk of breast cancer.
- The Natural Pharmacy: Complete A-Z Reference to Natural Treatments for Common Health Conditions by Alan R. Gaby, M.D., Jonathan V. Wright, M.D., Forrest Batz, Pharm.D. Rick Chester, RPh., N.D., DipLAc. George Constantine, R.Ph., Ph.D. Linnea D. Thompson, Pharm.D., N.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

Results of one small study suggested that body stores of vitamin D may be associated with survival chances in women with advanced breast cancer. “Thirteen women with normal or high levels of active vitamin D survived the 6-month test period but, sadly, in those with low levels, 5 out of 13 died within 6 months,” said Professor Barbara Mawer of the Manchester Royal Infirmary in central England.
- The Natural Pharmacist: Your Complete Guide to Reducing Cancer Risk by Richard Harkness
- Available on Amazon.com

A study comparing the health habits of 133 breast cancer patients with women who did not have the disease found that exposure to sunlight lowered the risk of breast cancer by 30 to 40% or more.
- The Natural Pharmacist: Your Complete Guide to Reducing Cancer Risk by Richard Harkness
- Available on Amazon.com

…when the same researchers looked at actual vitamin D levels, they found a 43 percent reduction in risk of breast cancer among women younger than 60 when comparing the highest levels of vitamin D (greater than 40) to lowest (less than 20). These findings are consistent with findings that cite a lower risk of breast cancer with increased ultraviolet light exposure, which means higher vitamin D levels are protective. Furthermore, researchers find higher activated vitamin D levels in women with less invasive and/or less advanced breast cancer.
- The Vitamin D Cure by James Dowd and Diane Stafford
- Available on Amazon.com

Two equally effective sources of vitamin D in humans are derived from plant ergosterol, which is converted to ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) and cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) by the action of sunlight on the skin. The body uses vitamin D3 for normal immune system function, to control cellular growth, and to absorb calcium from the digestive tract. Vitamin D3 can inhibit the growth of malignant melanoma, breast cancer, leukemia, and mammary tumors in laboratory animals. Vitamin D3 can also inhibit angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels that permit the spread of cancer cells through the body.
- Permanent Remissions by Robert Hass, M.S.
- Available on Amazon.com

Sun-starved females are at great risk for breast cancer, particularly women living in northern latitudes where wintertime sun exposure produces little vitamin D because of a decline in UV radiation in solar light. Dietary supplements are strongly recommended. Warnings that adults can overdose on vitamin D with daily oral doses exceeding 2,000 units are ill founded. Vitamin D’s ability to inhibit breast cancer cell growth is enhanced by resveratrol, a red wine molecule. Resveratrol increases the vitamin D receptor sites on cells which sensitize the cells to vitamin D.
- You Don’t Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi
- Available on Amazon.com

George’s Hospital Medical School in London finds local production of vitamin D in breast tissue reduces the risk for breast cancer. For women with low breast tissue levels of vitamin D the risk for breast cancer rose by 354%! [Anticancer Research 26: 2573-80, 2006] This study suggests women sunbathe with breast tissue exposed to the sun to enhance local vitamin D production. The provision of 400 IU of vitamin D per day has been found to reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43%.
- You Don’t Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi
- Available on Amazon.com

Laboratory experiments show that vitamin D can inhibit the growth of human prostate cancer and breast cancer cells. Lung cancer and pancreatic cancer cells may also be susceptible to the effects of vitamin D. Sunlight also seems to be protective against several types of cancer, including ovarian and breast cancers, and this effect may be mediated by vitamin D levels.
- The New Encyclopedia of Vitamins, Minerals, Supplements and Herbs by Nicola Reavley
- Available on Amazon.com

In animals fed a high fat diet, which normally would produce a higher incidence of colon cancer, supplements of calcium and vitamin D blocked this carcinogenic effect of the diet. Vitamin D inhibits the growth of breast cancer in culture, and also seems to subdue human breast cancer. Cells from human prostate cancer were put into a “…permanent nonproliferative state.”, or shut down the cancer process, by the addition of vitamin D. Human cancer cells have been shown to have receptor sites, or stereo specific “parking spaces” for vitamin D.
- Beating Cancer with Nutrition by Patrick Quillin, PhD,RD,CNS
- Available on Amazon.com

These findings are consistent with findings that cite a lower risk of breast cancer with increased ultraviolet light exposure, which means higher vitamin D levels are protective. Furthermore, researchers find higher activated vitamin D levels in women with less invasive and/or less advanced breast cancer.
- The Vitamin D Cure by James Dowd and Diane Stafford
- Available on Amazon.com

When Japanese women move to the United States, their vitamin D intake sinks and their breast cancer rates skyrocket. Further, vitamin D slows the rate of growth of cancer cells in lab studies and cuts the rate of cancer in animals in half. All American women should eat foods with at least 400 IU of vitamin D per day, says Dr. Garland. The best sources of vitamin D are fatty fish, such as salmon, sardines, mackerel, herring and tuna as well as vitamin-D-fortified milk (make it skim). But the richest source of vitamin D in the world is eel, popular in Japanese sushi bars.
- Food Your Miracle Medicine by Jean Carper
- Available on Amazon.com

But how does vitamin D actually work? For many years that was a mystery. The “revolution of information” on vitamin D began in 1968, when J.W. Blunt and colleagues discovered the form of vitamin D that actually circulates in the blood (25-OH-D3). This hormonal form of the vitamin, created in the kidneys, is ultimately responsible for the classical action of the vitamin. At the molecular level, some cancer cells appear to have receptors on their surfaces that are capable of receiving the vitamin D molecule.
- Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer’s Guide To Non-Toxic Treatment & Prevention by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

This could explain the incidence of breast cancer being higher in cold climates than in warm. Vitamin D lack in cold climates is also a possible explanation. To the hazards which clearly contribute towards breast cancer, hormones (estrogen), high- fat diet, abortion and family history there is one more problem. That is organochlorines. There are more than 10,000 different organochlorines, including chlordane, DDT, dioxin, vinyl chloride, atrazine, and CFCs. Studies routinely show that women with breast cancer have high tissue levels of organochlorines .
- A Physician’s Guide To Natural Health Products That Work by James A. Howenstine, MD
- Available on Amazon.com

Most of 63 recently reviewed studies found a protective effect between vitamin D status and cancer risk. A study presented at the 2006 American Association for Cancer Research meeting suggested that an increase in vitamin D lowered the risk of developing breast cancer by up to 50 percent. How might vitamin D help? It’s the body’s most potent regulator of cell growth, preventing cells from becoming malignant, explains Michael Holick, MD, PhD, head of the Vitamin D, Skin, and Bone Research Laboratory at Boston University School of Medicine.
- Food Synergy: Unleash Hundreds of Powerful Healing Food Combinations to Fight Disease and Live Well by Elaine Magee
- Available on Amazon.com

Those whose cancers had such vitamin D receptors “had significantly longer disease-free survival” periods than those whose tumors did not. Vitamin D also stopped the growth of several kind of human breast cancer cells in the test tube. Treatment of mice with breast cancer “produced significant inhibition of tumor progression,” according to pathologists at St George’s Hospital Medical School in London, UK. Taken together, these studies suggest vitamin D may inhibit the growth of cancers that have receptors for the vitamin.
- Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer’s Guide To Non-Toxic Treatment & Prevention by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

Sunlight exposure, which leads to an increased level of vitamin D, correlates with a reduced risk of breast cancer. I usually recommend small amounts of vitamin D (400 to 1,000 IU) for those people without sunlight exposure, especially during the winter. I also occasionally recommend cod liver oil during the winter months as a source of vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids. Vitamin D deficiency is very common in the elderly and in people who live in parts of the world with little sunlight; it is also one of the major contributing factors to osteoporosis.
- Herbal Medicine, Healing and Cancer: A Comprehensive Program for Prevention and Treatment by Donald R. Yance, j r.,C.N., M.H., A.H.G., with Arlene Valentine
- Available on Amazon.com

With the discovery of breast cancer-associated gene mutations (BRCA1 and BRCA2), which dramatically increase the risk for getting breast cancer, many women thought a cure might be just around the corner. However, researchers detect these mutations in only about one in three hundred to five hundred people — and they account for only about 2 percent of breast cancers.
- The Vitamin D Cure by James Dowd and Diane Stafford
- Available on Amazon.com

Sunscreen is promoted for preventing skin cancer, but it also prevents the formation of vitamin D, an antioxidant which inhibits the initiation phase of breast cancer. Habitual sunscreen users have unusually low levels of vitamin D. Mineral oil, found in many skincare products, also blocks production and absorption of vitamin D.
- Breast Cancer? Breath Health! The Wise Woman Way by Susun S. Weed
- Available on Amazon.com

A clinical trial of Vitamin D provided encouraging results. Patients with locally advanced breast cancer were given a highly active Vitamin D analogue cream to rub on their tumours. “It was effective in one third of the tumours,” said Professor Charles Coombes, clinical oncologist, Charing Cross Hospital, London.
- Bartram’s Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine: The Definitive Guide by Thomas Bartram
- Available on Amazon.com

Your skin can manufacture its own D with roughly 15 minutes of sun exposure three or four days a week. If you shun the sun, you should be getting a minimum of 700 IU of vitamin D3 a day; 1,000 IU daily might be even better, but don’t go overboard because vitamin D can be toxic at very high doses.
- Best Choices From the People’s Pharmacy by Joe Graedon, M.S. and Teresa Graedon, Ph.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

Now, sulfur dioxide (a main ingredient in smog) absorbs ultraviolet light in the very part of the spectrum that triggers the production of vitamin D in the skin. ‘Acid haze’ (a high concentration of sulfur dioxide in the air) may thus lead to vitamin D deficiencies and therefore breast and colon cancer. In 20 Canadian cities, there was a positive association between air pollution and the death rate from colon cancer in both women and men, as well as breast cancer in women.
- Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer’s Guide To Non-Toxic Treatment & Prevention by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

The collected data showed that individuals in the group with the lowest blood levels of vitamin D had the highest rates of breast cancer, and the breast cancer rates dropped as the blood levels increased. The most astounding finding in this study is that the blood level associated with a 50 percent lower risk of breast cancer could be reached by spending as little as 25 minutes in the sun for darker skinned people, and no more than 10 to 15 minutes for lighter skinned individuals.
- Timeless Secrets of Health & Rejuvenation: Unleash The Natural Healing Power That Lies Dormant Within You by Andreas Moritz
- Available on Amazon.com

…there is mounting evidence that vitamin D from sunlight and fish oil may reduce the incidence of certain cancers, such as breast cancer. Hence, some vitamin D residuals in the fish oil may actually increase its protective value against cancer as well as CHD.
- Textbook of Natural Medicine 2nd Edition Volume 1 by Michael T. Murray, ND
- Available on Amazon.com

New and exciting studies suggest that vitamin D does indeed protect against colorectal and breast cancers and that it may be beneficial in the treatment of certain cancers. There is speculation that chronic vitamin D deficiency finally shows up as cancer of the breast and colon.
- The Doctor’s Vitamin and Mineral Encyclopedia by Sheldon Saul Hendler
- Available on Amazon.com

Vitamin D is also important in reducing breast cancer, with increased intake of both calcium and vitamin D showing good results.
- Eat To Beat Cancer: A Research Scientist Explains How You and Your Family Can Avoid Up to 90% of All Cancers by J. Robert Hatherill
- Available on Amazon.com

Women with breast cancer are twice as likely to have a fault in the gene required to utilize vitamin D, according to Joseph Mercola, D.O. New research from London suggests that women with polymorphisms (genetic variations) of the vitamin D receptor gene may be less able to benefit from the nutrient. The study added to the increasing evidence that vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms play a role in the disease process (Bretherton-Watt et al. 2001).
- Disease Prevention and Treatment by The Life Extension Editorial Staff
- Available on Amazon.com

There is some evidence that vitamin D can help transform breast cancer cells into healthy cells. Vitamin D supplements are not necessary; all that is needed for the body to manufacture adequate amounts of vitamin D for fighting cancer is to expose your hands and face to sunlight for twenty minutes each day. Do not use sunscreen during this twenty-minute period, since sun blocks screen out the kind of ultraviolet light that stimulates the natural production of the vitamin.
- Prescription for Herbal Healing: An Easy-to-Use A-Z Reference to Hundreds of Common Disorders and Their Herbal Remedies by Phyllis A. Balch, CNC
- Available on Amazon.com

Vitamin D also lessens rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, hip fractures, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, breast cancers (in areas of low solar radiation); intestinal, colon and rectal cancers; prostate cancers, and increases Lymphocytes against Candida. Full-spectrum lights on rodents slowed tumor development. Moderate ultraviolet light stimulates metabolism; the short ultraviolet rays are germicidal; improve Immunity, trigger an anti-cancer Enzyme; stimulate Vitamin D formation, saliva, and improve Calcium and Phosphorus metabolism.
- Anti-Aging Manual: The Encyclopedia of Natural Health by Joseph E. Mario
- Available on Amazon.com

Diseases and conditions caused by vitamin D deficiency:
* Osteoporosis is commonly caused by a lack of vitamin D, which impairs calcium absorption.
* Sufficient vitamin D prevents prostate cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, depression, colon cancer, and schizophrenia.
* “Rickets” is the name of a bone-wasting disease caused by vitamin D deficiency.
* Vitamin D deficiency may exacerbate type 2 diabetes and impair production of insulin in the pancreas.
* Obesity impairs vitamin D utilization in the body, meaning obese people need twice as much vitamin D.
- Natural Health Solutions by Mike Adams

It intrigues me to see the immense power of our bodies to heal themselves.  We all know we were created to heal ourselves.  Sometimes we need help and there are infinite options available for help.  I am here to help in any way I can.

As the Cancer Survivor Speaker, I want you to see the importance of your immune system in healing and living a healthy, abundant life.  Build it strong!

Breast Cancer Rates Soar after Mammograms and Some Cancers may Heal Naturally
by Sherry Baker

(NaturalNews) A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reaches a startling conclusion. Breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.

This raises some obvious and worrisome questions: Did the x-rays and/or the sometimes torturous compression of breasts during mammography actually spur cancer to develop? Or does this just look like an increase in the disease rate because mammography is simply identifying more cases of breast cancer?

The answer to the first question is that no one knows (and it isn’t addressed in the Archives of Internal Medicine study). But the second question has an unexpected and – for those interested in the human body’s innate ability to heal itself – potentially paradigm-shifting answer. The researchers say they can’t blame the increased incidence of breast cancer on more cases being found because the rates among regularly screened women remained higher than rates among women of the same age who only received mammograms once after six years. Bottom line: the scientists conclude this indicates that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. Simply put, it appears that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the body’s own immune system.

Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D., Ph.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, and his research team studied breast cancer rates among 119,472 women (age 50 to 64). These research subjects were asked to participate in three rounds of screening mammograms between 1996 and 2001, as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. The scientists then compared the number of breast cancers found in this group to the rate of malignancies among a control group of 109,784 women who were the same ages in 1992, and who would have been invited for breast screenings if the program had been in place that year. Cancers were tracked using a national registry. Then, after six years, all participants were invited to undergo a one-time screening to assess for the prevalence of breast cancer.

The researchers were surprised to find that the incidence of invasive breast cancer was 22 percent higher in the group regularly screened with mammography. In fact, screened women were more likely to have breast cancer at every age.

“Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years,” the authors stated in their report. “This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress.”

The researchers also conclude that their findings “provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress.”

This does not mean breast cancer should be ignored or not treated. After all, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American women. But the extraordinarily good and hopeful news is that it appears invasive breast cancer sometimes can be destroyed naturally — at least in some people — by the body’s own innate defenses.

“Although many clinicians may be skeptical of the idea, the excess incidence associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression be considered carefully,” the scientists wrote in their report. “Spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported, with a recent literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed to follow their natural course.”

In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine that accompanies the breast cancer study, Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Franz Porzsolt, M.D., Ph.D., of Clincal Economics University of Ulm, Germany, wrote that the most important concern raised by the study is “how surprisingly little we know about what happens to untreated patients with breast cancer.

In addition to not knowing the natural history of breast cancer for younger women, we also know very little about the natural history for older women. We know from autopsy studies that a significant number of women die without knowing that they had breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ). The observation of a historical trend toward improved survival does not necessarily support the benefit of treatment.”

Originally published November 24 2008
 
About the author
Sherry Baker is a widely published writer whose work has appeared in Newsweek, Health, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Yoga Journal, Optometry, Atlanta, Arthritis Today, Natural Healing Newsletter, OMNI, UCLA’s “Healthy Years” newsletter, Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s “Focus on Health Aging” newsletter, the Cleveland Clinic’s “Men’s Health Advisor” newsletter and many others.
——————————————————————————–

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

Matter of fact, I have a plastic bottle of water in my car right now! 

Bottled water in your car…..very dangerous, woman!!!!This is how Sheryl Crow got breast cancer. She was on the Ellen show and said this same exact thing. This has been identified as the most common cause of the high levels in breast cancer, especially in Australia

A friend whose mother was recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The Doctor told her: women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car.
 
 The doctor said that the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain
 chemicals that can lead to breast cancer. So please be careful and do not
 drink bottled water that has been left in a car, and, pass this on to all
 the women in your life. This information is the kind we need to know and be
 aware and just might save us!!!! The heat causes toxins from the plastic to
 leak into the water and they have found these toxins in breast tissue. Use
 a stainless steel Canteen or a glass bottle when you can!!!

LET EVERYONE WHO HAS A WIFE / GIRLFRIEND / DAUGHTER KNOW PLEASE

Sheila Ulrich Cancer Survivor Speaker

Does vitamin D deficiency contribute to cancer?

Now most medical doctors feel safe recommending vitamin D as a supplement because of the research data showing we are deficient in it.  They believe this is one of the vitamin and minerals that we are fairly certain are safe for anyone.

They are seeing a link in this deficiency to some cancers.  Here is an excerpt from a news report this week. 

“This study found that vitamin D deficiency is very common among women with breast cancer, and it suggests that vitamin D deficiency is linked to poorer outcomes in these women,” said Nancy Davidson, director of the breast cancer program at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center and president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Goodwin recommended that women who are diagnosed with breast cancer should take a simple blood test to determine their body’s vitamin D levels.

“If you’re a woman with breast cancer, it’s probably worthwhile having vitamin D levels checked. If they’re deficient, they should take more to get it in the range that we think is beneficial,” she said. “This study is significant because it tells us this may be one thing women can do to improve their prognosis,” said Anne McTiernan of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

Even with strong evidence that vitamin D can help prevent – and, in the current study, fight off – various cancers, researchers are still unclear on the mechanism by which the chemical works.

“We know from basic science studies that breast cancer cells have vitamin D receptors and can interact with vitamin D,” Goodwin said.
Some scientists have suggested that the nutrient might play a role in regulating programmed cell death, without which cells can turn cancerous.

“Vitamin D is pretty unique in its action in that it does enter the cancer cells and induces them to undergo a cell death process,” Walsh said. “The effects of vitamin D on breast cancer cells are very similar to the established drug Tamoxifen that many women take for breast cancer.”
In a demonstration for ABC News, Walsh added vitamin D to a breast cancer culture, causing the cells to shrivel up and die.

Breast cancer cells are not the only cells with vitamin D receptors. In fact, nearly every cell in the body interacts with the vitamin in some way.

Daily vitamin D recommendations vary widely by country, with the United States and Canada recommending 200 IU per day for children and 400 IU for adults. But many researchers, and even the Canadian Cancer Society, have recommended that this value be raised to 1,000 IU per day. While 400 IU may be sufficient to maintain bone health, scientists say, higher levels are needed to provide cancer-fighting benefits.
Sources for this story include: www.washingtonpost.com ; www.abcnews.go.com ; www.baltimoresun.com.