•  Breast Thermography and Dr. Mercola

• IV Vitamin C and cancer treatment

• Artemisinin and cancer treatment

• Vitamins and expensive urine

Dr. Mercola and Breast Thermography

You have heard me talk about Dr. Mercolas web site in the past.  Its www.mercola.com   Recently he put up a 17 page informative brochure on thermography, primarily breast thermography.  I have included the piece from his newsletter with the link at the end which will take you to his thermography booklet.  Give me a call if you have any questions about thermography.  Dr. Mercola has been a supporter of breast thermography for a long time but apparently in just now opening a thermography lab.  Of course we have had our thermography lab open since 2002.  Take a few minutes and look at his informative booklet.

From his newsletter:

There is no solid evidence that mammograms save lives. In fact, research demonstrates that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over getting the examination alone.

Yet, most physicians continue to recommend mammograms for fear of being sued by a woman who develops breast cancer after which he did not advise her to get one. But I encourage you to think for yourself and consider safer, more effective alternatives to mammograms.

The option for breast screening that I most highly recommend is called thermography.

Thermographic breast screening is brilliantly simple. It measures the radiation of infrared heat from your body and translates this information into anatomical images. Your normal blood circulation is under the control of your autonomic nervous system, which governs your body functions.

Thermography uses no mechanical pressure or ionizing radiation, and can detect signs of breast cancer years earlier than either mammography or a physical exam.

Mammography cannot detect a tumor until after it has been growing for years and reaches a certain size. Thermography is able to detect the possibility of breast cancer much earlier, because it can image the early stages of angiogenesis (the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into tumors of size).

To find out everything you need to know about the risks of conventional breast cancer screening (mammograms) and the benefits of thermography, please take a few minutes to read this exclusive, FREE report: The Safe Breast Cancer Screening Test Your Doctor Isn’t Telling You About.  http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/Thermography-Special-Report.pdf

Alternative and Complementary Cancer Therapies

One of the areas I have repeatedly stressed in this newsletter and in my practice is prevention of cancer.  We have talked about proper nutrition, lifestyle habits and in the area of breast cancer, the use of breast thermography as a risk assessment tool and if you are at elevated risk, taking steps to reduce your risk.  But what if in spite of taking all the correct steps cancer becomes a part of your life?  Little improvement has been made in the area of conventional oncology in late stage cancer and even early stage cancer can be problematic. Do you have choices in treatment?  Fortunately the answer is yes.  There are many approaches which affect the growth of a cancer including enhancing the programmed cell death (apotosis), inhibiting angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels) which is necessary for a cancer to survive and thrive, cytotoxic therapies ( treatments which attack and kill the cancer cell directly) and other approaches.  This is a complex area and I recommend you seek the advice of someone familiar with natural medicine oncology if you are treating a cancer. 

VITAMIN C  and Cancer Treatment

As I mentioned there are many natural therapies which I believe are as effective if not more effective than some conventional cancer therapies.  I am not suggesting natural therapies be used in place of conventional therapies but rather as a complement to them.  Let me know if you are interested in learning more about some of these therapies, but for now I want to discuss one in particular – Vitamin C.

There is substantial empirical data and research to support the use of vitamin C in the treatment of cancer.  In spite of the evidence the various cancer groups have failed to recognize this safe and effective treatment.  The concentration of vitamin C needed for cancer therapy can only be achieved via the intravenous route.  Oral administration will not allow for blood levels high enough to be therapeutic.  Some of the original research that led vitamin C to be disregarded as an effective therapy was based on oral administration.

Consider the following release for the Orthomolecular News Service:

Recently the BBC reported that "Vitamin C 'slows cancer growth.' An injection

of a high dose of vitamin C may be able to hold back the advance of cancers, US scientists claim. The vitamin may start a destructive chain reaction within the cancer cell." The injection "halved the size" of tumors, and was reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study authors themselves said that daily, high-dose vitamin C treatment "significantly decreased growth rates" of ovarian, pancreatic, and malignant brain tumors in mice. Such high, cancer-stopping levels of vitamin C can be "readily achieved in humans given ascorbate intravenously."

So what do major cancer organizations have to say? Not much. That is disappointing, but hardly surprising.

Both the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK have downplayed or flatly ignored decades of physician reports and controlled clinical studies indicating that vitamin C stops cancer. What's worse, each of these supposedly comprehensive cancer research and education organizations continues to actively discourage people from using vitamin C against cancer.

Look for yourself and see. The American Cancer Society's vitamin C webpage specifically states: "Although high does of vitamin C have been suggested as a cancer treatment, the available evidence from clinical trials has not shown any benefit." And Cancer Research UK states that "There is currently no evidence from clinical trials in humans that injecting or consuming vitamin C is an effective way to treat cancer."   "No benefit," they say. "No evidence," they say.  Both organizations are wrong. Neither statement is true.

In 2008, Korean doctors reported that intravenous vitamin C "plays a crucial role in the suppression of proliferation of several types of cancer," notably melanoma.

In 2006, Canadian doctors reported on the effectiveness of intravenous vitamin C in treating cancer.

In 2004, doctors in America and Puerto Rico published clinical cases of vitamin C successes against cancer.

In 1990, American doctors published their results successfully using vitamin C to treat kidney cancer In 1995 and 1996, other cancers.

Using 30,000 mg of intravenous vitamin C twice per week, they found that

"metastatic lesions in the lung and liver of a man with a primary renal cell carcinoma disappeared in a matter of weeks. . . We subsequently reported a case of resolution of bone metastases in a patient with primary breast cancer using infusions of 100 grams, once or twice per week."

In 1982, Japanese doctors showed that vitamin C greatly prolonged the lives of terminal cancer patients.

And as early as 1976, over two decades ago, physicians in Scotland showed that intravenous vitamin C improved quality and length of life in terminal cancer patients.

Why are ACS and Cancer Research UK oblivious to the weight of evidence? All these previous clinical reports were published in peer-reviewed medical journals. One may bear in mind that both ACS and Cancer UK made their restrictive statements August 2008. Yes, 2008. In spite of increasingly compelling evidence for 22 years, both the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK are dragging their feet. Foot-dragging costs lives.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died from cancer that could have been helped with ascorbate therapy.  But for decades, their three advocated cancer treatments have been "cut, zap, and drug": surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. The use of high doses of vitamins has been thoroughly excluded.  Indeed, ACS still says: "If a supplement is taken, the best choice for most people is a balanced multivitamin/mineral supplement that contains no more than 100% of the 'Daily Value' of most nutrients."

That is harmful advice. Many well designed clinical studies show that large doses of vitamin C and other nutrients improve both quality and length of life for cancer patients. The key is the use of sufficiently high quantities, appropriately administered. More orange juice just won't do it.