July 31, 2012
from GreenMedInfo Website
Cancer is the second leading cause of
death in the developed world, and yet we are still in the dark ages
when it comes to treating and understanding it.
The only justification for their use, in
fact, is that they are highly effective at damaging the DNA within
cells - with the hope that the cancer cells will be more susceptible
to being harmed than the healthy ones (sadly, not always true).
This is not unlike the fixation in
toxicological risk assessments for drugs, environmental pollutants,
food additives, etc., where determining "an acceptable level of
harm" (a rather horrible oxymoron) to the exposed population is the
first order of business.
Classified by the WHO as Carcinogenic
This is known as the "Mutational Theory" of cancer, and has been the dominant explanation for half a century. Therefore it is absolutely disconcerting that the standard of care in cancer treatment today is still the use of genotoxic agents versus substances that are able to selectively harm the "bad" cells, leaving the "good" ones intact; which is also known as "selective cytotoxicty," and is a property characteristic of natural anti-cancer compounds and whole plant extracts.
Nowhere is this more clearly
demonstrated than in the case of fruit-derived compounds, such as
graviola, where research indicates that fruit extract may be up to
10,000 times more effective at killing certain cancer cells versus
adriamycin (not so affectionately named the "red devil" for its
lethal side effects) and is highly selective in which cells it
Does that really make sense? Even if tamoxifen was effective (which increasingly it is not), does it really matter if it "cures" breast cancer only to cause endometrial or liver cancer (which is often far more deadly than breast cancer) as a direct result of the treatment?
Tamoxifen and chemotherapy resistance is increasingly a problem. In the same way that certain pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics - even becoming stronger after being challenged with them - drug resistance and multi-drug resistance to chemoagents is the canary in the coal mine, indicating the entire paradigm, hinged as it is on patented, highly toxic chemicals, is rearing to collapse.
A woman whose breast is irradiated is
more likely to develop lung cancer, for instance. But its effects
may actually be far worse on the primary cancer it is being used to
There are also cancer stem cells, which
are technically slower-replicating and therefore less likely to be
destroyed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and yet which are
responsible for re-seeding and fueling the growth of the tumor
itself with a theoretical limitless resupply of daughter cells.
This promotion of self-initiating cancer cells is also true for chemotherapy, of course.
Incidentally, the low-dose radiation used to diagnose breast cancers in x-ray mammography is likely causing far more cancers in women over time than it is said to prevent.
If you read the actual peer-reviewed medical literature on the subject you may be surprised to find that the low-dose ionizing radiation is actually far more carcinogenic (3-4 fold higher) than the high-dose radiation it is often compared to in radiation risk assessments. In fact, one of the most well known breast cancer associated genes, namely, BRCA1/BRCA2, confers greater susceptibility to radiation induced breast cancer in those who have it.
In other words, staying away from
medical radiation, diagnostic or therapeutic, may be essential to
avoid the cancer it is being used to both "prevent" and "treat."
Treatment Fails & Will Continue To Do So
But cancer may not be a strict random mutation process, but an ancient survival program unmasked; that is, the cancer cell may be drawing from a far more ancient evolutionary and genetic "tool kit" which enables it to survive far harsher cellular environments, e.g. chemical exposure, low oxygen, higher availability of glucose/fructose, acidic pH, etc. and therefore the addition of highly toxic chemotherapy-type chemicals will selectively kill the weaker, and technically healthier (more benign) cells within a breast tumor, while creating the very conditions within which the malignant and more chemoresistant cancer cells may thrive.
Multidrug-resistance genes and proteins are involved.
When attacked by a chemical (xenobiotic)
the cancer cell may "regress" and activate the genetic equipment
that enables it to efficiently push out (efflux) the chemoagent
being used, surviving, while its neighboring weaker (though
technically more normal and healthier) cells die off.
The incurability of pancreatic cancer
vis-à-vis chemotherapy and radiation, therefore, may reflect how the
standard treatments themselves are driving the patient into
premature death. When the average
pancreatic cancer patient (using
most chemo and radiation protocols) lives no more than 6 months, do
we say that the cancer killed them, or the treatments?
Think of it this way:
Cancer, after all, is something our body
does (and likely to survive) and not something that happens to it,
as if the genes in our body just went off one day like a cancer
time-bomb, fatalistically predetermined by the less than perfect
genes we inherited from our predecessors.
And the solution may be as close to us
as our kitchen spice racks:
The Case For Turmeric
Yet, despite having been shown to have therapeutic value in more than 500 diseases in animal and test tube studies, it still has not been the subject of extensive human clinical trials.
As a public service GreenMedInfo.com has
indexed curcumin's anti-cancer properties in more than 50 cancers,
with the top 10 most compelling cancers applications in cancer
prevention and treatment listed below:
What Has the Actual Research Shown?
As one can see by the density of research referenced above, curcumin holds great promise.
First, it has an exceedingly high margin of safety relative to conventional drugs. As an example, the dose at which it will acutely kill 50% of the animals given it is 2,000 mg/kg, whereas it only takes 115 mg/kg of 5-fluorouracil (conventional chemo agent) to produce the same effects.
What is even more amazing is that it has been repeatedly demonstrated to possess both chemoprotective and chemosensitizing properties, which means that it will both enhance the positive cancer-killing effects of conventional chemotherapy, while at the same time protect healthy cells which may be susceptible to being harmed by chemotherapy.
GreenMedInfo.com contains 57 studies on its chemosensitizing properties and 70 on its chemoprotective properties for reference.
As if this wasn't impressive enough, it also has profound radioprotective and radiosensitizing properties. Radioprotective substances protect the healthy cells in the body from being damaged by radiotherapy, and radiosensitizing substances help the radiation kill the cancer cells, making them "more sensitive" to the radiation treatments.
GreenMedInfo contains 15 studies on
curcumin's radiosensitizing properties and 23 studies on its