Medical Treatments#
Chemotherapy Treatment#
Chemotherapy is known to cause myelotoxicity, which is suppression of bone marrow. This results in a decrease in the production of leukocytes, the cells responsible for providing immunity – a highly undesirable complication when dealing with an aggressive illness. Additionally, chemotherapy can suppress oxygen-carrying cells and thrombocytes, which are crucial for regulating blood clotting. It’s important to note that if a patient dies from one of these side effects, they can still be counted as a 5-year cancer survivor, as the cause of death is not directly attributed to cancer.
The suppression of the human system through chemotherapy can lead to several new, potentially life-threatening diseases. Let’s focus on one such condition: Neutropenia. Neutropenia is characterized by an abnormally low number of neutrophils in the blood, which significantly increases the risk of infection and can be life-threatening.
In a desperate attempt to save your life, the amazing human body often produces a fever to muster your remaining forces to combat the infection. However, doctors often (and arguably unwisely) treat this fever with an antipyretic, which can further increase the risk of mortality, offering no actual benefits.
A complication induced by chemotherapy treatment accounts for 40-50% of the total hospitalization costs in cancer care[ref]Hosiriluck , N. (2015). View of prognostic factors for mortality with febrile neutropenia in hospitalized patients: The southwest respiratory and critical care chronicles. https://pulmonarychronicles.com/index.php/pulmonarychronicles/article/view/188/446[/ref] Let that fact sink in: one of the most common treatments for cancer is responsible for 50% of the hospital-related expenses in cancer treatment.
In a study examining the effects of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in hospitalized patients, it was found that out of 127 individuals, the 30-day mortality rate was 20.5%.[ref]Hosiriluck , N. (2015). View of prognostic factors for mortality with febrile neutropenia in hospitalized patients: The southwest respiratory and critical care chronicles. https://pulmonarychronicles.com/index.php/pulmonarychronicles/article/view/188/446[/ref] However, they are still counted as cancer survivors because their deaths were not directly caused by cancer. Let me put it another way, the medical system counts dead people as “survivors.” If you’re beginning to feel outraged, you haven’t seen anything yet!
As is typical in high-profit medicine, rather than discontinuing ineffective and highly dangerous procedures, they simply attempt to treat the effects. One such treatment for myelotoxicity, caused by chemotherapy, is the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (GCSF). And this boils my blood. The cost of GCSF treatment ranges between $2,000 to $7,000 per day, with the average hospital admission cost for febrile neutropenia being around $22,000.[ref]MJH Life Sciences. (2017, December 29). The value of granulocyte colony stimulating factors in managing febrile neutropenia. AJMC. https://www.ajmc.com/view/the-value-of-granulocyte-colony-stimulating-factors-in-managing-febrile-neutropenia[/ref]
That’s $2,000 a day for a treatment you can get completely naturally for a few dollars. But there is more! The side effects of this unethical price-gouging scheme are quite scary and include the following:
- Leaking of fluid and proteins out of the blood vessels into the tissues (better known as edema)
- High uric acid levels in the blood that may cause gout and arthritic conditions
- Blockages of the small veins in the liver causing liver damage
- Changes in your lungs as seen on an x-ray
- Thinning of the bones which can make the bones weaker and easier to break (osteoporosis)
- Protein in your urine
- Severe pain in the bones, chest, gut or joints (sickle cell anaemia with crisis)
- Plum coloured, raised, painful sores on the your legs or arms and sometimes the face and neck with a high temperature (Sweets syndrome)
- Enlarged spleen and liver (sounds lovely)
- Hair thinning
- Breathlessness
- Reduction in platelets in the blood causing severe issues including bruising, bleeding gums or nosebleeds and death!
Natural GCSF treatment for a few dollars#
Honey#
Honey, when heated to 180°C for 60 minutes or to 200°C for 15-30 minutes, induces the production of GCSF. This effect has been linked to high levels of isomaltose, which stimulates the production of GCSF. Although Cancer.gov lists GCSF as a treatment for neutropenia “caused by some types of chemotherapy”, they refuse to acknowledge honey as a source, despite possessing the research that proves it. Instead they list drugs costing thousands of doors. They are bought and paid for by the cancer drug cartel.
Sho-saiko-to#
Sho-saiko-to is a Chinese formula—we don’t recommend chinese supplements due to low standards, high toxicity levels and contamination. This formula consists of Scullcap, Licorice, Radix Bupleuri, Pinellia ternata, Ginseng, and Ginger and was shown to both increase production of tumor necrosis factor-alpha as well as GCSF.[ref]Yamashiki M;Nishimura A;Nomoto M;Suzuki H;Kosaka Y; (1996, February 11). Herbal medicine ‘sho-saiko-to’ induces tumour necrosis factor-alpha and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in vitro in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8672758/[/ref] These herbs also benefit the liver which is negatively impacted by chemotherapy.
Natural Treatments for Breast Cancer#
Flaxseed#
This herb is one of the richest sources of lignans and α-linolenic acid, or omega 3. It was studied for its effects on the growth and metastasis of established human breast cancer in a mouse model. Compared to the control group, mice supplemented with 10% flaxseed showed a significant reduction in tumor growth rate and a 45% reduction in total incidence of metastasis. The incidence of lung metastasis was 55.6% in the control group compared to 22.2% in the flaxseed group, while the incidence of lymph node metastasis was 88.9% in controls and 33.3% in the flaxseed group. The number of metastatic lung tumors was reduced by 82% in the flaxseed group. The study concluded that flaxseed inhibits human breast cancer growth and metastasis. This effect was partly due to the downregulation of insulin-like growth factor I and epidermal growth factor receptor expression.[ref]Chen, J., Stavro, P. and Thompson, L., 2002. Dietary Flaxseed Inhibits Human Breast Cancer Growth and Metastasis and Downregulates Expression of Insulin-Like Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12588699/[/ref]
In another study examining tumor formation, mice were fed either a basal diet(sufficient caloric diet) or the basal diet supplemented with 2.5%, 5%, or 10% flaxseed. This regimen was followed for two weeks before and after an intravenous injection of 0.75 × 10(5) melanoma cells. The median number of tumors in mice fed the diets supplemented with 2.5%, 5%, and 10% flaxseed was 32%, 54%, and 63% lower, respectively, compared to the controls. The addition of flaxseed to the diet resulted in a dose-dependent decrease in tumor cross-sectional area and tumor volume, meaning it effectively shrank and reduced the number of tumors. In other words, flaxseed not only reduced metastasis but also inhibited the growth of metastatic secondary tumors.[ref]Yan, L., Yee, J., Li, D., McGuire, M. and Thompson, L., 1998. Dietary flaxseed supplementation and experimental metastasis of melanoma cells in mice. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9500208/[/ref]
Grapeseed#
Procyanidins in grapeseed are being studied as a chemopreventive agent against breast cancer through suppression of in situ estrogen biosynthesis[ref]ET, E., J, Y., D, W., S, P., RE, M., MK, Y., U, G., G, B. and S, C., 2003. Suppression of estrogen biosynthesis by procyanidin dimers in red wine and grape seeds. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14679019[/ref] In a study of oral administration of grapeseed extract, the number of metastatic nodules induced in mice were reduced by 26.07% compared with a control group treated with ethanol.
What causes breast cancer?#
Heavy Metals#
Many diseases are associated with heavy metals, and breast cancer is no exception. When 20 breast cancer biopsies were examined and compared to 8 healthy biopsy controls, the researchers found a “highly significant accumulation of iron, nickel, chromium, zinc, cadmium, mercury, and lead”. Copper and silver showed no significant differences between the two groups.[ref]JG, I., J, N., V, S., A, L., E, B. and M, E., 2006. Increased levels of transition metals in breast cancer tissue. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16804515/[/ref] This study and others find a very direction correlation between heavy metal accumulation in the body and free radical generation, DNA damage, tumor growth, and cancer spread. For breast cancer patients, a heavy metal cleanse would do them well, and potentially arrest tumor growth. Tumors form in the body as a defense mechanism to prevent toxification.
Risks Associated With Testing Procedures#
Mammograms#
After 14 years of mammography follow-up, a consistent correlation can be observed between mammogram testing and the incident rate, immediately following the onset of testing. The authors concluded their controversial study by stating:
“The figures from 14 years of mammography screening indicate that all increase in the incidence of breast cancer is due to over-diagnosis: findings of tumours that in the absence of screening would never have given rise to clinical illness.”[ref]Zahl, P. and Mæhlen, J., 2012. Overdiagnostikk av brystkreft etter 14 år med mammografiscreening. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22353833/[/ref]
The purpose of this study is not to prove that mammograms cause cancer, other studies address that concern. The purpose is instead to show that women who would have never died of breast cancer are forced into an exhausting, brutal cascade of treatments that offer them no benefits in either quality or extension of life.
Radiology#
A scary study published in the International Journal of Radiology calls for reflection on the use of radiation in treatment of cancer. Women who received radiation therapy for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma were found to have a very strong increased risk of breast cancer. About 90% of the breast cancers in these patients were attributed to their radiation treatment.[ref]Broeks, A., Braaf, L., Wessels, L., van de Vijver, M., De Bruin, M., Stovall, M., Russell, N., van Leeuwen, F. and Van ‘t Veer, L., 2010. Radiation-Associated Breast Tumors Display a Distinct Gene Expression Profile. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20117289/[/ref] This causes serious concern that cancer treatments are creating new disease and reducing quality of life. This study also revealed that radiation-induced tumors are of a specific profile and feature high proliferation and aggressive tumor growth.
Biopsies#
Biopsies have the ability to create metastasis, although this is a fact doctors do not discuss with patients. And if asked, most doctors will downplay the significance. The risk is explained in a peer reviewed paper:
“Dislodging neoplastically altered cells from a tumor during biopsy or surgical intervention or during simple procedure like needle aspiration is a possibility because they lack cohesiveness, and they attain the capacity to migrate and colonize.”[ref]Shyamala, K., Girish, H. and Murgod, S., 2014. Risk of tumor cell seeding through biopsy and aspiration cytology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015162/[/ref]
The authors go on to explain why this is a likely possibility, citing case studies revealing it does happen. The researchers continue:
“Considering the fact that, every tumor cell, is bathed in interstitial fluid, which drains into the lymphatic system and has an individualized arterial blood supply and venous drainage like any other normal cell in our body, inserting a needle or a knife into a tumor, there is a jeopardy of dislodging a loose tumor cell into either the circulation or into the tissue fluid. Tumor cells are easier to dislodge due to lower cell-to-cell adhesion.
…after diagnostic biopsy of a tumor, many patients developed cancer at multiple sites and showed the presence of circulating cancer cells in the blood stream on examination.”[ref]Shyamala, K., Girish, H. and Murgod, S., 2014. Risk of tumor cell seeding through biopsy and aspiration cytology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015162/[/ref]
Consider that few (if any) cancer patients are screened or tested after biopsy for cancer spread caused by the test itself. If many of those who are examined after biopsy show migration and metastasis following surgery or test, then we can see this is a considerable issue. One, two, or five years later, when the cancer is discovered, doctors often act as though it is a new occurrence, when in fact it was likely their own tests that caused it.
This, however, is not new, Dr. Philip Rubin of the University of Rochester wrote in his book Clinical Oncology back in 1974 that surgical biopsies may contribute to the spread of cancer in some cases. For nearly 50 years, the cancer societies have known this and have done nothing to study the risks associated with these tests. Why? Because the cancer society is built around money, not saving lives. That is why they use a ridiculous 5-year survival rate instead of the actual mortality rate. When you look at the actual mortality rates for cancer treatment, you find the emperor is naked, and the whole system is just a cash cow being milked for all it’s worth.
Risks studied in various cancers
John Wayne Cancer Institute of Santa Monica, CA conducted a study involving 663 women with breast cancer. Half of these women underwent breast biopsies, while the other half had their tumors completely removed without a biopsy. The study found that, compared to the women who had their tumors surgically removed, there was a 50% higher chance of cancer spreading to the sentinel node, in those who underwent a needle biopsy[ref]Hansen, N., 2004. Manipulation of the Primary Breast Tumor and the Incidence of Sentinel Node Metastases From Invasive Breast Cancer. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15197090/[/ref]
In another systemic review encompassing over 15 studies, the reviewers discovered that malignant cell displacement in surgical specimens from breast cancer patients occurred in 22% of the patients.[ref]Liebens, F., Carly, B., Cusumano, P., Van Beveren, M., Beier, B., Fastrez, M. and Rozenberg, S., 2009. Breast cancer seeding associated with core needle biopsies: A systematic review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19167175/[/ref] This means that, although biopsies pose a higher risk of spreading cancer compared to the surgical removal of a tumor, the surgery still leads to the spread of cancer in almost one-quarter of patients.
My aim is not to prove that biopsies are high risk but rather to demonstrate that there is a risk (potentially significant) that the cancer societies refuse to address. If you cannot trust them to be honest about the risks associated with their own testing methods, how can you trust them with treatment? In the interest of transparency, it should be noted that breast cancer seems to have the highest risk for metastasis associated with testing and surgical procedures, sometimes as high as 94%.
Other risks
In the Journal Urology, researchers looked at single and repeat biopsies and found that:
“Each biopsy was associated with a significant risk of complications compared to randomly selected controls.”[ref]Loeb, S., Carter, H., Berndt, S., Ricker, W. and Schaeffer, E., 2013. Is Repeat Prostate Biopsy Associated with a Greater Risk of Hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23063634/[/ref]
