How pure is your drinking water?

Questions, Send us a message!

Have you been on a diet, and still can't lose weight? When your next diet fails, who will you blam?

Want financial independence? Check this out!

Are your Beliefs your own or someone else?

The cause and conventional
treatment of cancer today 

Below is an article on conventional treatment that I recently came across. HERE IS THE ARTICLE

"The current thinking is that 5% of cancers are "familial," meaning the genes you inherited from your parents make you more susceptible to the disease.

The other 95% of cancers are thought to be "sporadic," caused by genetic mutations due to diet, tobacco, radiation, toxic chemicals, etc.

In fact, the National Academy of Sciences claims that 60% of cancers in women and 40% in men are primarily caused by diet. And most of us will rely on medicine to bail us out if we do get cancer.

The standard cancer treatment today is to use surgery first when possible, so as to "debulk" the tumor, then follow it up if appropriate with radiation or chemotherapy. "Debulking" makes a lot of sense in solid tumors like sarcomas because it's so hard to get at the core of the tumor with chemotherapeutic agents.

But the fact of the matter is, the cure rate for cancer has risen in recent years primarily due to early detection and surgical removal of tumors before they've had a chance to spread.

Thirty years when the gonernment declared war on cancer, medicine still hasn't conquered metastatic tumors. The fact is that it's worce now.  They also claim that, chemo and radiation -- for the most part -- simply don't work. (What a revelation) Only 10% of patients are "cured" (5-year remission) by chemo alone. Another 5% of patients are "cured" by a combination of radiation and chemotherapy. Except in some childhood cancers and a few adult malignancies, however, chemo by itself rarely results in a five-year remission. That is a pretty damning indictment of chemo when you think about it. Radiation and chemo achieve their effects by letting loose a hail of free radicals in cells. Apoptosis, or "programmed cell death" is the result -- the cell commits suicide. Radiation and chemo create such a storm of free radicals in cells that they die. But since it happens to any cell in their path, healthy cells die along with malignant cancer cells. Thus, radiation and chemotherapy both have the undesirable effect of damaging the immune system, which, after all, plays a key role in fighting cancer normally. Every day, there are cells in your body turning cancerous. Your immune system is the watchdog that sweeps them away. But standard cancer treatments destroy your own body's cancer-fighting power.

Chemotherapy was a good starting point After all, before these drugs we had little hope at all. Traditional chemotherapy consists of cytotoxic agents like cisplatin, 5-FU, doxorubicin and Taxol -- Bristol-Myer's best-selling drug that we discussed in Biotech Investing when we recommended Angiotech in October 1999. (Angiotech has patented several uses for paclitaxel, the generic name for Taxol.

We made a 186% profit on the stock in the three months we held it.) But everyone agrees, we must find something better -- more effective and less dangerous than chemotherapy -- if we're to make real headway in the battle against cancer. The standard toxicities with chemotherapy include heart damage, nerve damage that can cause hideous pain, dreadful infections of the mouth and mucous membranes, nausea and vomiting, alopecia (hair loss), and blood disorders due to bone marrow damage and bone loss. That's why oncologists regard Glaxo-Wellcome's Zofran as the biggest recent advance in cancer therapy. Zofran fights the "wasting" syndrome that afflicts cancer patients as tumors suck up all the body's nutrition and start impinging on vital organs.

There are other so-called "advances" in chemotherapeutic treatment that include new delivery formulations like Alza's Doxil. These are kinder, gentler ways of delivering the same old nasty chemo drugs. There are also pretreatment "cytoprotectants" like Alza's Ethyol that theoretically protect cells from chemo damage. But recent research suggests these drugs may simply trigger more big problems. Hormone therapy is no answer.

Hormone therapy is generally the "antagonism" or suppression of hormones that encourage cancer growth. Under this category of drugs comes AstraZeneca's Zoladex, which suppresses testosterone in prostate cancer, and their drug Tamoxifen, which suppresses estrogen in breast cancer. But it's well known that five years' treatment with Tamoxifen, which is the standard preventive regimen, results in considerable loss of memory.

This is because the brain uses estrogen heavily to function. And it's our guess that Zoladex may ultimately show the same problem in prostate cancer because men convert testosterone to estrogen for their brain function as well. Altogether, it's hard to conclude that the present treatment modalities for cancer are anything but barbarous. This may explain why the word "cancer" is simply terrifying to most people.

Here is the real thing about this article, just read the following sentence:

We believe that biotech will cure cancer And the slew of new treatments now under development will trigger an explosion of fortune-building profits for investors like us. That's why I urge you to join me at Biotech Investing now "
Now you know, the real reason... profits not health!

"The real truth on Cancer"