CAUSES OF CANCER

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?