To
begin this article, i must say this: note, no information contained herein is
meant to be medical advice, always consult your physician before beginning any
medical regimen.
There
are many causes of cancer, known and theorized. there are definitely many types
of cancer, known and experienced. this article is meant to consider three of
the researched, possible causes of this dreaded disease: smoking, diet and
abortions.
SMOKING
It
is widely accepted that tobacco smoke causes most lung cancer deaths. Studies
show that tobacco smoke -- including secondhand smoke -- may also contribute to
non-lung cancers more than previously thought.
Researchers
have used data from the national center for health statistics and concluded
that tobacco smoke may have led to more than 70% of cancer deaths among
Massachusetts men in 2003.
"this study
provides support for the growing understanding among researchers that smoking
is a cause of many more cancer deaths besides lung cancer," says
researcher bruce leistikow, a university of California, davis associate adjunct
professor of public health sciences, in a news release. "The full impacts
of tobacco smoke, including secondhand smoke, have been overlooked in the rush
to examine such potential cancer factors as diet and environmental
contaminants. as it turns out, much of the answer was probably smoking all
along."
Researchers
compared death rates from lung cancer to death rates from other cancers from
1979 to 2003 among Massachusetts males. Their analysis revealed that the two
rates changed in tandem year-by-year from 1979 to 2003.
The
researchers conclude that the close relationship between the rates suggests
that they have the same cause, which is tobacco smoke.
"the fact
that lung and non-lung cancer death rates are almost perfectly associated means
that smokers and nonsmokers alike should do what they can to avoid tobacco
smoke," leistikow says in the news release. "it also suggests that
increased attention should be paid to smoking prevention in health care reforms
and health promotion campaigns."
While
there are countless reasons to stop smoking, here's one more: it appears that a
genetic alteration that occurs in certain colon cancers is linked to cigarette
smoking, with smokers almost twice as likely to have this mutation as
nonsmokers.
Researchers
from the University of Utah found that the genetic alteration, known as
microsatellite instability, was strongly linked to smoking in those picking up
the habit at a young age and in those who had smoked for many years. They
estimated that 21% of all colon cancers associated with this genetic alteration
can be linked to smoking. Their findings were reported in the journal of the
national cancer institute.
"We have
known for a long time that there are differences in the genetic characteristics
of tumors," study author martha l. slattery, phd, tells webmd. "The
association between cigarette smoking and colon cancer has been believed to be
small, because most studies have been inconclusive. this study suggests there may
be a link between smoking and specific subsets of colon cancer." slattery
is a professor of epidemiology at the university of Utah.
Microsatellite
instability is a genetic error found in the "letter" pairs that make
up dna, the basic set of instructions found in every cell of the body. This
instability has been shown to interfere with a cell's ability to identify and
correct the dna mutations that lead to cancer. While microsatellite instability
is common in people with an inherited form of colon cancer called hereditary
nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, these family-linked tumors account for just 2%
to 5% of all colon cancers. The microsatellite instability error, however, is
believed to be present in roughly 15% of all colon cancers.
"This study
is unique because it linked smoking to this mismatched repair," Michael
thun, md, who heads epidemiological research for the American cancer society,
tells WebMD. "This is some of the best evidence that smoking plays a role
in at least some colorectal cancers."
The
university of Utah researchers found that colon cancer patients with
microsatellite instability were more likely to smoke 20 or more cigarettes a
day, were more likely to begin smoking at a young age, and were more likely to
have smoked for 35 years or more, compared to colon cancer patients without the
genetic error. They found a twofold increased risk associated with cigarette
smoking and microsatellite instability in tumors.
The
authors conclude that smoking represents the largest risk factor for microsatellite
instability in tumors identified to date. Their findings also could help
researchers better understand the pathways involved in the progression to colon
cancer. Numerous studies have definitely linked cigarette smoking with the
formation of colon polyps known as adenomas, which are precursors to colorectal
cancer. But studies evaluating smoking in colon and rectal cancers have been
far less conclusive.
DIET
To
the risk of obesity and heart attack, the government has added yet another
reason to avoid eating lots of fat, especially from meat and dairy products:
pancreatic cancer.
the
national institutes of health has determined that people who indulge heavily in
meat and dairy fats are likely more to develop this deadly disease, which will
strike more than 42,000 Americans this year and kill more than 35,000,
according to the American cancer society.
Men
and women who consumed large amounts of saturated fat were 36 percent more
likely to suffer from pancreatic cancer, researchers reported online in the
journal of the national cancer institute.
The study found that the link between fat intake and cancer was strongest for
saturated fat from animal food sources, which were associated with a 43 percent
increase in cancer risk. To reach their conclusion, nih researchers analyzed
records of more than 500,000 people enrolled in the national institutes of
health- diet and health study. Participants completed a food frequency
questionnaire in 1995 and 1996 and were followed to track a variety of health
issues, including pancreatic cancer. Over an average follow-up of 6.3 years,
865 men and 472 women were diagnosed with exocrine pancreatic cancer.
Among
the participants who consumed the highest amounts of total fats, the rate of
cancer was 53 percent higher for men and 23 percent higher for women, compared
to participants with the lowest fat diets.
Combining
the data for men and women, the researchers found that total fat consumption
was associated with 23 percent higher rates of pancreatic cancer, while high
intake of monosaturated fats was associated with 22 percent higher cancer
rates.
They
theorized that the association between fat intake and pancreatic cancer could
be related to the so-called exocrine function of the pancreas, which excretes
enzymes such as those that help digest fat.
They
also noted that studies have linked saturated fat to insulin resistance and
that diabetes and insulin resistance have been associated with increased
pancreatic cancer risk.
Diet link to
pancreatic cancer needs more study
In
an accompanying editorial, two prominent cancer researchers praised the nih
team, although they noted that more research would be necessary to definitively
prove a direct link between fat intake and pancreatic cancer.
dr.
brain wolpin of the dana farber cancer institute in boston and dr. meir
stampfer of the Harvard school of public health noted that pancreatic cancer
kills 95 percent of its victims, and though it's far less common than many
other types, it's the nation's fourth leading cause of cancer deaths.
Overall,
they called on scientists "to push our research efforts in novel
directions and provide hope for meaningful progress in this highly lethal
disease."
ABORTIONS
The
link between abortion and breast cancer risk is controversial. While several
studies over the past few decades have explored the possible connection between
abortion and breast cancer risk, the results have been contradictory. Some
studies have shown a small increase in the risk of breast cancer in women with
a history of abortions while other studies have found no such risk. Even some
studies that have shown that a history of abortions can increase a woman's risk
for breast cancer have been criticized because factors in these studies (such
as reporting bias) may have contributed to inaccurate results.
According
to independent experts at the national cancer institute and the American cancer
society, there is currently no conclusive link between induced abortions and
breast cancer risk. Despite these statements, abortion and breast cancer risk
continues to be a controversial subject.
Why has abortion been linked to breast cancer risk?
breast
cancer is one of the most common cancers among women and the second leading
cause of cancer death in the united states (after lung cancer), excluding
non-melanoma skin cancers. Since 1973, when abortion became legal in the United
States, the incidence of breast cancer in the U.S. has risen dramatically.
While
there has not been any conclusive evidence that a history of abortion increases
a woman's risk of breast cancer, abortions have been suggested by some to
increase breast cancer risk because of the involvement of the female hormone
estrogen.
Near
the beginning of pregnancy, estrogen levels increase so that the breasts may
prepare to produce milk. After the woman gives birth, estrogen levels decrease
again. In fact, full-term pregnancy (especially at a young age) has been
associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer in medical studies. However,
there has been some concern that if the pregnancy is aborted, a woman's
estrogen levels would continue to remain elevated for a period of time,
possibly increasing the risk of breast cancer. There is also some speculation
(although not proven in human studies) that the breast duct cells, which
normally go through a complete cycle of growth, development, and regression
during pregnancy and lactation (breast-feeding), may be changed in some way,
possibly leading to an increased risk of cancer.
There
are two types of abortion: spontaneous (also called miscarriages) and induced
(purposely performed). Spontaneous abortions that occur within the first three
months of pregnancy are often due to insufficient estrogen levels. However,
some believe that unlike spontaneous abortions, induced abortions may increase
breast cancer risk because estrogen levels have been elevated and may remain elevated.
While abortion and breast cancer risk is controversial, the link has not been
conclusively proven.
In
fact, a large epidemiological study published in the new England journal of
medicine in 1997 showed that the risk of developing breast cancer for women
with a history of induced abortion did not differ from the risk for women
without a history of induced abortion. In this study, the researchers were able
to avoid recall bias (women may not accurately report their reproductive
history) since the information on abortions was collected before breast cancer
developed.
aside
from the issue of abortions, scientists have identified several other risk
factors for breast cancer, including: age family and personal history genetics having
the first child after age 30 or never having children
smoking/alcohol use diet/obesity use of hormone replacement therapy
Why are abortion
studies complicated?
Abortion
studies are complicated because the issue of abortion is complex, influenced by
emotional and socio-political components. also, determining which abortion
studies are valid and which are flawed can be difficult. study results can be
influenced by a number of factors, including:
the
number of cases observed; a very small number may not be reflective of the
general population the type of abortion: induced versus spontaneous (also
called miscarriages) accounting for other lifestyle or genetic factors that may
influence breast cancer risk the amount of time between abortion and breast
cancer occurrence.
A
study published in the journal of the national cancer institute in 1994 also
shows the potential inaccuracies of abortion studies. In the study, researchers
relied on self-reports of abortions from the women. The results showed a 50%
increased risk of breast cancer (1.5 times the relative risk) from induced
abortions. However, the study did not take into account a number of other
potentially important factors, including the number of abortions the women had,
the women's age at the time of the abortions, and the length of pregnancy
before the abortions. Furthermore, the study did not show any increased risk
between spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and breast cancer risk. Because of
the possible inaccuracies, the researchers said that the study did not permit
scientific conclusions.
Note:
a woman's relative risk for breast cancer can increase due to a number of
factors. For example, women with a first-degree relative with breast cancer
(sister or mother) have the relative risk of 3.0 to 5.0 for developing breast
cancer compared to women who do not have a first degree relative with breast
cancer. Therefore, a relative risk of 1.9 or 1.5 for women with a history of
induced abortions is small when compared to other breast cancer risk factors.
p.s.
there are many cancer-cure books and articles also. The following is an excerpt
from the website of bill Henderson. In November 1990, his late wife, Marjorie,
began her four-year bout with ovarian cancer. She died on November 1, 1994. After
watching that, it was hard for him to believe that millions of people each year
had to endure that same torture. He believes that the treatment she received
was the cause of her death, not the cancer.
THE HEALING REGIMEN
The
regimen i recommend for all cancer patients comes at the cancer from seven
different "directions." seven different theories about how to deal
with cancer cells. All of these seven forms of treatment are gentle (no
dangerous, too-rapid "die off"), non-toxic and they all work
together. They are, in fact, synergistic. They help each other.
These five
conditions must be corrected before anyone can get over cancer:
1) A weak immune system;
2) A lack of
oxygen uptake by the cells;
3) Excessive toxins;
4) Acidity; and
5) Specific
deficiencies.
Conventionalcancer treatment (chemotherapy, radiation and surgery) makes all of these
conditions worse. In fact, it is responsible for almost all the deaths
attributed to "cancer." that's right. The "treatment"
causes the deaths -- not the cancer.
why?
The conventional cancer treatments are approaching the cancer tumor (or its
existence in your blood, lymph system or bone marrow) as if it were the
"enemy." kill the cancer cells at all costs! Those costs may be your
heart, your liver, your kidneys -- or your life.
Why
do they do these things? There are literally 400 other effective ways to treat
cancer. All of them are non-toxic and harmless to your other organs. Why
doesn't your cancer doctor tell you about these options?
The
average cancer patient (like you) generates $1.3 million in revenue for the
cancer "industry." do you think they want you to be healed by
something that costs pennies a day?