Pages

Monday, 30 September 2019

Immunotherapy drug could halt the return of the 'most aggressive form of breast cancer' and 'save thousands of lives'

  • Women with triple negative breast cancer were given the drug Keytruda 
  • Keytruda was taken alongside chemo to shrink tumours before surgery
  • More than 60% of the patients showed no sign of cancer after the operation

An immunotherapy drug could prevent a 'particularly aggressive' form of breast cancer returning, research suggests.
Scientists gave more than 700 women with triple negative breast cancer Keytruda (pembrolizumab), a drug which has been shown to be effective in lung and skin forms of the disease.
The patients took Keytruda alongside chemotherapy to shrink their tumour, before having the malignant mass surgically removed. 
Some 64 per cent of the women showed no sign of cancer after going under the three-pronged treatment, the study found. This is compared to 51 per cent of those who had chemo and a placebo. 
Fifteen months later, the disease was 37 per cent less likely to return in the women who took Keytruda, the Queen Mary University of London researchers added.  
The scientists have called the results 'very promising', with the drug having the potential to 'cure more patients' and 'save thousands of lives'.
Over 700 women with triple negative breast cancer were given Keytruda (pembrolizumab)
Over 700 women with triple negative breast cancer were given Keytruda (pembrolizumab) 
'Triple-negative breast cancer is a particularly aggressive form of cancer with the potential to devastate lives,' lead author Professor Peter Schmid said.
'We have been desperately looking for better treatment options. These early results suggest the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy leads to a substantial reduction in recurrences in this form of breast cancer.
'These are preliminary results, but they are very promising. If we prevent the cancer from coming back, we cure more patients, but we need longer-term data to confirm this.'
He added, according to The Sun: 'The potential of this is massive — this approach could save thousands of lives.'

WHAT IS KEYTRUDA? AND IS IT AVAILABLE IN THE UK? 

Keytruda (pembrolizumab) is an IV immunotherapy that works with a cancer patient's immune system to help them fight the disease.
It does this by blocking PD-L1 on the surface of cancer cells. This takes the brakes off the immune system, setting it free to attack cancer cells.  
Keytruda, developed by Merck, has been approved by the FDA to treat the following cancers:
  • Advanced melanoma
  • Advanced non-small lung
  • Head and neck squamos cell
  • Classical Hodgkin lymphoma
  • Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma
  • Bladder and urinary tract 
  • Advanced stomach
  • Advanced cervical 
  • Those with a 'DNA mismatch repair', which can include breast 
In the US, Keytruda - injected twice a week - can be used in adults or children with any of the above cancers that cannot be surgically removed or have progressed following treatment. 
In June 2018, NHS England announced the drug will be routinely available on the health service for patients with lung cancers that have spread. It can already be dished out for patients with melanoma or Hodgkin lymphoma.
Some patients have also chosen to have the treatment privately.  
Studies show the drug can shrink different types of tumours and boost a patient's response to other treatments.  
But Keytruda can also cause the immune system to attack healthy organs and tissue, which can be life threatening. Complications may include colitis, hepatitis or kidney failure. 
Source: Keytruda.com

One in eight women in the UK and US will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, Cancer Research UK statistics show. 
In the UK, triple negative breast cancer makes up 15 per cent of cases of the disease - around 7,500 people each year.
And in the US, it is responsible for 10-to-20 per cent of breast cancers, according to Breastcancer.org
Triple negative tumours do not have receptors for the hormones oestrogen and progesterone or the HER2 protein.
As a result, hormone treatments and the HER2-binding drug trastuzumab (Herceptin) do not work. 
Patients are therefore usually forced to have chemotherapy and surgery.
Immunotherapy is increasingly being used to fight cancer by boosting the body's natural defences. 
To investigate its potential in triple negative breast cancer, the scientists tested Keytruda in 124 clinics across 21 countries between March 2017 and September last year.
Keytruda was given to 748 patients before and after surgery, while 390 women had chemo and a placebo.
After surgery, 64.8 per cent of the patients who received immunotherapy had no signs of cancer versus 51.2 per cent of those treated with chemo and a placebo.
Full results will be presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2019 Congress in Barcelona. 
'We know if cancer is completely gone out of the breast, they have a much better long-term survival, the cure rates are much higher,' Professor Schmid said.
'Whereas in patients where there is still cancer visible at the time that we do the operation, they have a higher risk of recurrence.' 
Fifteen months later, there was a 'favourable trend' towards the patients staying cancer-free, which Professor Schmid calls 'incredibly encouraging'.  
Keytruda is an ‘anti PD-1 inhibitor', which make cancer cells more ‘visible’ to the immune system. 
In recent years it has become widely available on the NHS for lung and skin cancer, and is used in some cases for types of bladder cancer and lymphoma. 
ESMO spokesman Professor Fabrice AndrĂ©, of the Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, said: ‘Triple negative breast cancer represents an unmet medical need, since the only approved medical therapy at early stages of the disease is chemotherapy.
‘This study could have a major impact on treatment for these patients.’
Future research will track cancer recurrence in both Keytruda and placebo-treated groups over a long time, the scientists said. 

WHAT IS BREAST CANCER, HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES IT STRIKE AND WHAT ARE THE SYMPTOMS?

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. Each year in the UK there are more than 55,000 new cases, and the disease claims the lives of 11,500 women. In the US, it strikes 266,000 each year and kills 40,000. But what causes it and how can it be treated?
What is breast cancer?
Breast cancer develops from a cancerous cell which develops in the lining of a duct or lobule in one of the breasts.
When the breast cancer has spread into surrounding breast tissue it is called an 'invasive' breast cancer. Some people are diagnosed with 'carcinoma in situ', where no cancer cells have grown beyond the duct or lobule.
Most cases develop in women over the age of 50 but younger women are sometimes affected. Breast cancer can develop in men though this is rare.
The cancerous cells are graded from stage one, which means a slow growth, up to stage four, which is the most aggressive.
What causes breast cancer?
A cancerous tumour starts from one abnormal cell. The exact reason why a cell becomes cancerous is unclear. It is thought that something damages or alters certain genes in the cell. This makes the cell abnormal and multiply 'out of control'.
Although breast cancer can develop for no apparent reason, there are some risk factors that can increase the chance of developing breast cancer, such as genetics.
What are the symptoms of breast cancer?
The usual first symptom is a painless lump in the breast, although most breast lumps are not cancerous and are fluid filled cysts, which are benign. 
The first place that breast cancer usually spreads to is the lymph nodes in the armpit. If this occurs you will develop a swelling or lump in an armpit.
How is breast cancer diagnosed?
  • Initial assessment: A doctor examines the breasts and armpits. They may do tests such as a mammography, a special x-ray of the breast tissue which can indicate the possibility of tumours.
  • Biopsy: A biopsy is when a small sample of tissue is removed from a part of the body. The sample is then examined under the microscope to look for abnormal cells. The sample can confirm or rule out cancer.
If you are confirmed to have breast cancer, further tests may be needed to assess if it has spread. For example, blood tests, an ultrasound scan of the liver or a chest x-ray.
How is breast cancer treated?
Treatment options which may be considered include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormone treatment. Often a combination of two or more of these treatments are used.
  • Surgery: Breast-conserving surgery or the removal of the affected breast depending on the size of the tumour.
  • Radiotherapy: A treatment which uses high energy beams of radiation focussed on cancerous tissue. This kills cancer cells, or stops cancer cells from multiplying. It is mainly used in addition to surgery.
  • Chemotherapy: A treatment of cancer by using anti-cancer drugs which kill cancer cells, or stop them from multiplying
  • Hormone treatments: Some types of breast cancer are affected by the 'female' hormone oestrogen, which can stimulate the cancer cells to divide and multiply. Treatments which reduce the level of these hormones, or prevent them from working, are commonly used in people with breast cancer.
How successful is treatment?
The outlook is best in those who are diagnosed when the cancer is still small, and has not spread. Surgical removal of a tumour in an early stage may then give a good chance of cure.
The routine mammography offered to women between the ages of 50 and 70 mean more breast cancers are being diagnosed and treated at an early stage.
For more information visit breastcancercare.org.uk or www.cancerhelp.org.uk

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7519901/Immunotherapy-drug-help-thousands-women-aggressive-form-breast-cancer.html

Saturday, 28 September 2019

Dogs Can Detect Lung Cancer With 97 Percent Accuracy

Animals are a precious gift to humanity, and we have so many lessons to learn from them. 

Published
  
on
 





Animals are a precious gift to humanity, and we have so many lessons to learn from them. If you were an empathetic, benevolent alien looking down on planet Earth, no doubt you’d be heartbroken at and terrified of the way we treat animals. 

We slaughter them by the billions, destroy their homes, experiment on them, and worse. That being said, the ‘good’ side of humanity loves animals, and there are a lot of activist efforts out there that are speaking up for those who do not have a voice, not to mention the ever growing movement promoting a plant-based diet. We are making progress.

IN BRIEF

  • The Facts:
    Early detection provides the best opportunity for lung cancer survival; however, lung cancer is difficult to detect early because symptoms do not often appear until later stages. Dogs were able to help solve that issue.
  • Reflect On:
    Why do we use animals for experiments? Unless they are willing and have a loving home and are provided for, animals should never be used as lab rats or for scientific purposes. What makes us think we have the right to do that?

Another important point regarding animals is the fact that we know so little about them. We think we know, but the truth is we don’t know, and there is so much more to discover, especially with regards to certain abilities they may possess like clairvoyance, precognition, telepathy, and other types of extra-sensory perception that human beings may have dormant within them as well.
I recently came across a study regarding three beagles successfully showing that they are capable of identifying lung cancer by scent, which is the first step in identifying specific biomarkers for the disease. The researchers hypothesized that their abilities may lead to the development of a new type of cancer screening method that is fairly inexpensive. Although we still need more research on the factors in our environment that are causing cancer in the first place, this is still great to see.
However, it’s only great if these animals are not being used solely for the purpose of study and are living happy and healthy lives because, as you may not know, beagles are the dogs most commonly used for scientific experiments, which are cruel and inhumane. At the end of the day, animals should not be used for such purposes. They are here as our companions, as part of our human family.
These dogs were able to tell the difference between blood serum samples that were taken from patients with malignant lung cancer and health controls with, as the study points out, 97 percent accuracy. The double blind study was published in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.
Thomas Quinn, the lead author of the study and professor at Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, said, “We’re using the dogs to sort through the layers of scent until we identify the tell-tale biomarkers. There is still a great deal of work ahead, but we’re making good progress.”
Again, I can’t help but wonder: Do these dogs have families? Are they being loved and cared for? Or are they simply being used for lab experiments? The thought of that is heartbreaking, and it makes me not even want to support or write about a study like this, but I couldn’t find any details about the lives of the dogs.
It sounds like they are simply ‘lab rats,’ given the description of the study, but again, we don’t know. They were led into a room with blood serum samples at nose level. Some samples came from patients with non-small cell lung cancer; others were drawn from healthy controls. After sniffing a sample, the dogs sat down to indicate a positive finding for cancer or moved on if none was detected.
“Samples from 10 donors (6 women and 4 men) were used in the testing phase. Their ages ranged from 26 to 80 years (mean, 58.2 years). The samples from female donors (mean age, 64 years) came from 3 black women, 2 white women, and 1 Hispanic woman. The samples from male donors (mean age, 49.5 years) came from 2 black men, 1 white man, and 1 man of mixed race. Canine No. 1 indicated a positive sample on 10 of the 10 cancer samples and 1 of the 40 control samples during his test runs. Canine No. 2 indicated a positive sample on 10 of the 10 cancer samples and 0 of the 40 control samples during her test runs. Canine No. 3 indicated a positive sample on 9 of the 10 cancer samples and 2 of the 40 control samples during her test runs. (From study).”

A Few Words About Cancer

I often become frustrated at the bombardment of “cancer awareness” advertisements, or when I see the Heart & Stroke Foundation serving processed meats at their fund raisers. In many cases, the companies raising money for cancer research are putting out products that are causing the problem in the first place. Why do we constantly raise money for cancer research and become so emotional and “patriotic” about ‘finding a cure’ and ‘fighting cancer’ without ever acknowledging the causes of cancer? Why do we see advertisements of cancer patients fighting cancer in order to entice us into donating? Why do people proudly fight cancer and go through conventional treatments without ever being aware of alternative, more successful and effective treatments? What is going on here?
When it comes to cancer awareness, all of us should really be tweeting and posting about environmental pesticides, electromagnetic radiation, processes foods and meat, unhealthy lifestyles, sugar, emotional baggage, trauma, stress, and several other factors that are clearly causing cancer.
Why is it that there are only a couple of accepted treatments for cancer that oncologists are legally able to recommend?
There are so many head-scratchers when it comes to cancer, and any cancer awareness efforts should be bombarded with ‘f**ck glyphosate,’ and things of that nature. That would be REAL cancer awareness.

The Takeaway

Animals are not to be used as experiments, but I wanted to present this info simply because, as I mentioned earlier, there are so many amazing, good, positive things about them. Their abilities go far beyond what we know, and when it comes to dogs in particular, they are nothing but of service to others. If you have a dog, you know what I am talking about, and in many cases they already know things about you and your biology that you may not be aware of, unless you are really in tune with them.
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/06/26/dogs-can-detect-lung-cancer-with-97-percent-accuracy/

Friday, 27 September 2019

Real Salt, Celtic Salt and Himalayan Salt

This is what real salt looks like—we all know what regular white salt looks like—and we mistakenly think it is real salt when it is not. The fact is that refined white salt, such as commercial table salt is bad, very bad stuff. Unrefined natural salt on the other hand is good, very good stuff providing many health benefits.

Published
  
on
 





IN BRIEF

  • The Facts:
    This article was originally written by Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P) (acupuncturist, doctor of oriental and pastoral medicine) and published at Greenmedinfo.com. Posted here with permission.
  • Reflect On:
    Do you know the difference between refined salt and unrefined salt?
Unrefined sea salt is healthy. The blood-pressure-raising effect of table salt can be due to its high content of sodium with not enough magnesium to balance it. This has a magnesium-lowering effect that can constrict the arteries and raise blood pressure. Real salt (of various kinds) contains plenty of magnesium and other important minerals, which is why it usually does not affect blood pressure in a negative way.[1]
Sodium is an essential nutrient required by the body for maintaining levels of fluids and for providing channels for nerve signaling. Some sodium is needed in your body to regulate fluids and blood pressure, and to keep muscles and nerves running smoothly.
Without appropriate amounts of sodium, your body may have a difficult time cooling down after intense exercise or activity. When the body is hot, you sweat. If you do not have enough sodium, your body may not sweat as much and you may then become overheated. This could result in a stroke or exhaustion as well as dehydration.
Sodium is an energy carrier. It is also responsible for sending messages from the brain to muscles through the nervous system so that muscles move on command. When you want to move your arm or contract any muscle in your body, your brain sends a message to a sodium molecule that passes it to a potassium molecule and then back to a sodium molecule etc., etc., until it gets to its final destination and the muscle contracts. This is known as the sodium-potassium ion exchange. Therefore, without sodium, you would never be able to move any part of your body.
Excess sodium (such as that obtained from dietary sources) is excreted in the urine.[2]Most of the sodium in the body (about 85%) is found in blood and lymph fluid. Sodium levels in the body are partly controlled by a hormone called aldosterone, which is made by the adrenal glands. Aldosterone levels determine whether the kidneys hold sodium in the body or pass it into the urine.
Dr. David Brownstein weighs in heavily on this matter saying, “Nobody makes a distinction between unrefined and refined salt. They ‘lump’ all salt together as a bad substance. This is a terrible mistake. There are two forms of salt available in the market place: refined and unrefined. Refined salt has had its minerals removed and has been bleached to give it the white appearance that we are accustomed to seeing with salt. It is the fine, white salt that is available at almost any restaurant or grocery store. Refined salt has been bleached and exposed to many toxic chemicals in order to get it to its final product. It has aluminum, ferrocyanide, and bleach in it. I believe this refining process has made it a toxic, devitalized substance that needs to be avoided.”
“Unrefined salt, on the other hand,” Brownstein continues, “has not been put through a harsh chemical process. It contains the natural minerals that were originally part of the product. Its mineral content gives it a distinct color. The colors of unrefined salt can vary depending on where it is taken from. This is due to the changing mineral content of the various brands of salt. It is the minerals in unrefined salt that provide all the benefits of this product. The minerals supply the body with over 80 trace elements needed to maintain and sustain health.
Furthermore, the minerals elevate the pH (correct acidity) and lower blood pressure. Our maker gave us salt to use in our diet—unrefined salt—with its full complement of minerals. It should be the salt of choice. It is a vital ingredient that needs to be part of everyone’s diet.”
Dr. Brownstein says, “Years ago salt manufacturers decided that pure white salt is prettier than off-white salt and that consumers prefer pretty white salt. So they started bleaching it. They also added anti-clumping agents to increase its shelf life. The problem is that the chemicals added to keep salt from absorbing moisture on the shelf interfere with one of salt’s main functions: to regulate hydration in your body. The sodium chloride in table salt is highly concentrated, denatured, and toxic to your body. Ever put salt on an open cut? It burns!!!
Refined salt has the same effect on internal tissues and causes a negative reaction: your body retains water to protect itself, and your cells release water to help dilute, neutralize, and break down the salt. This loss of water dehydrates and weakens your cells and can even cause them to die prematurely. Natural sea salt is far superior to chemically-treated iodized table salts as it contains all 92 trace minerals, and it’s only 84% sodium chloride while table salt is almost 98%”.
All this adds up to one thing. Table salt, whether marine or not, is toxic—it’s poisonous to the body and is responsible, in great part, to the onset of many terrible diseases including thyroid and metabolic dysfunction.
In addition to sodium and chloride, Celtic Sea Salt® provides other nutrients that naturally occur in salt beds, including trace amounts of calcium, magnesium potassium, iron and zinc.
In accordance with standards set by The World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, independent analysis indicates that levels of heavy metals are non-detectable (e.g. arsenic, cadmium, mercury) or well below published safe limits in Celtic Sea Salt®. Perhaps most importantly, Celtic Sea Salt® is not exposed to refinement and bleaching used to manufacture typical table salt and there are no additives. Celtic Sea Salt® is harvested from the ocean using the sun, the wind and shallow clay ionizing ponds, a method passed down through the generations.
Many Americans over consume refined salt by eating processed foods, fast foods and canned foods with salt added. Celtic Sea Salt® is a good alternative as part of a healthier diet. Recommended use is a half teaspoon per day.
Himalayan crystal salt that is mined 5,000 feet deep below the Himalayan mountain range was subject to enormous pressure over millions of years and is over 99% pure. The higher the amount of pressure the more superior or excellent the state of order within the crystalline structure of salt. Many Himalayan salts are sold cheaply but are collected from higher up near the tops of the Himalayan Mountains instead of from the deeper mines. These salts contain more impurities, do not have the same structure and are not as easily assimilated by the body.
Himalayan salt contains 84 minerals and trace elements in ionic state and is a delightful pink color. People often state that they use less of this salt than of other types. Many sizes are available from 3 oz in a salt grinder to larger 1-kg bags (2.2 lb). Salt chunks are also available for making your own “sole,” which is a saturated solution of purified water with Himalayan salt. A specific recipe (see below) must be followed to make sole and results in a solution that has much less sodium than just adding salt to water would have. Daily use of sole is believed to stimulate the peristalsis of the digestive organs, balance the stomach acid, support the production of digestive fluids in the liver and pancreas, regulate the metabolism and harmonize the acid-alkaline balance.

Start Each Day with a Healthy Sole

The ideal way to use Himalayan Crystal Salt is in the form of a sole (so-LAY). Drinking the sole when you awake each morning is like getting up on the right side of the bed. It provides the energizing minerals you need daily to recharge your body, and it helps set the stage for a day of vitality.
Essentially, a sole is water saturated with Himalayan Crystal Salt. The sole contains about approximately 26 parts of salt to 100 parts of water. Prepare the water and salt combination in advance (see directions to the right). Each morning place a teaspoon of the sole mixture in a glass and fill with 8 ounces of pure spring water. Drink it immediately or sip it while getting dressed, checking emails or preparing breakfast. The water helps transport the electrolytes throughout the body to all the many places they are needed.

How to Prepare Sole

Sole is a mixture of water and salt. The object is to saturate the water with dissolved salt so it can’t hold anymore. You’ll know that you’ve created sole when there are undissolved salt crystals in the water. You can’t oversaturate the water with salt. The crystals will simply drop to the bottom of the container.
Place several Himalayan Crystal Salt stones or Himalayan Crystal Salt granules about an inch deep in a glass container. (A canning jar works well.)
Cover the salt with two to three inches of pure, spring water. Let the salt dissolve for 24 hours.
If all the salt dissolves in 24 hours, add more salt to the container. The sole is finished when the water can no longer dissolve the salt and the salt crystals drop to the bottom of the container. There will always be salt crystals in the jar. It doesn’t matter if you have only a few crystals or many. The water is saturated and is now sole.
Cover the container to prevent the water from evaporating. Since salt is a natural preservative, the sole will keep forever. It can’t spoil or go “bad.”
The vibrational energy of the Himalayan Crystal Salt remains in your body for 24 hours.
A teaspoon of sole contains 480 mg of sodium, or 20% of the Daily Reference Value of 2400 mg based on a 2,000 calorie per day diet.
Redmond Real Salt is mined in the United States and is another good unrefined salt that I also recommend. It can be used as a table salt and for cooking and is available in coarse and fine grinds and in a variety of sizes.
Real Salt comes from a mineral rich salt deposit formed by an ancient sea in Utah. It contains 62 trace minerals, and is without additives, chemicals, or heat processing of any kind. Real Salt’s unique pinkish appearance and flecks of color come from the more than 60 naturally occurring trace minerals. The result is a delicate “sweet salt” flavor that you may not have experienced before.
Special Note: I was very disappointed to hear Dr. Max Gerson’s daughter Charlotte Gerson saying, “That sodium is never good, never in any form!” I have put Gerson in the best light in my writings and his organization does hold the high ground for organic raw juicing but there are some things they say that have no grounding in medical science or clinical reality. Talk to Dr. David Brownstein and he will tell you that often the first thing a patient needs is water and salt but its real salt not table salt he is talking about and prescribing for his patients.
I have written a full essay addressing this communication from Charlotte. And I have another essay on using seawater as a medicine and that will be seen in my Treatment Essentials book that is now finished and ready for publication on the 15th of February. To even think of discounting the medical miracles from the sea, which Charlotte is clearly doing, makes me shudder.

Resources

  • [2] These processes in the body, especially in the brain, nervous system, and muscles, require electrical signals for communication. The movement of sodium is critical in the generation of these electrical signals. Too much or too little sodium therefore can cause cells to malfunction, and extremes in the blood sodium levels (too much or too little) can be fatal – http://www.medicinenet.com/electrolytes/article.htm

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/06/23/real-salt-celtic-salt-and-himalayan-salt/

Cancer Treatment? Soursop Shows Strong Evidence in Studies

Cancer has touched many of us in some way. Whether we know of or have overcome cancer ourselves, or know someone who has passed from it, we can all draw some form of intimate connection to the disease. 

Published 7 years ago on February 13, 2013By Joe Martino



The subject of cures and treatment has been of great debate within the industry as the generally accepted methods of chemotherapy and radiation come with moderately effective results and incredibly tough side effects. The search for alternative cures and treatments  has been ongoing for many years. While many claim they have come up with effective ways to treat the disease, very little seriousness is put towards these claims by mainstream medicine.

While we can argue the obvious financial implications to dominant pharmaceutical companies should a more natural and alternative cure be brought forth, it is still important to realize that many claims are made about alternative cures that may not truly work or work in every case. Since many cases of cancer are unique, it’s important to not generalize treatment methods. While mainstream medicine would like to have us believe that alternative cures never work and often lead to death, the truth is current mainstream methods of treatment for cancer often kill a patient faster than if they were not used. While this article isn’t geared towards explaining why, this information can be found quite easily using some credible sources around the internet or medical publications. You can also refer to this article about research fraud.
One alternative treatment of cancer that has been used in the past, especially in countries where it grows well, is Soursop. A flowering evergreen tree native to tropical regions, this fruit is said to kill cancer more effectively than chemotherapy drugs and does not produce the same undesirable side effects, but may not be fully clear of any adverse effects.
The active ingredient in Soursop that is proving to be effective is called Annona muricata or Graviola. Currently it exists on the market under the brand name of Triamazon but licensing of the product is not generally accepted in all countries due to the potential profit loss for pharmaceutical companies. Graviola is not just a cancer treatment, it has also displayed anti-parasitic, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, antirheumatic and cytotoxic properties, according to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. In some cases, Graviola has also been used as a pain killer and the results were positive.
In an assessment of Graviola, published in the December 2008 issue of the “Journal of Dietary Supplements”  by U.S. researchers Lana Dvorkin-Camiel and Julia S. Whelan, multiple in-vitro studies determined that Graviola is effective against various microbial and parasitic agents. Graviola displayed specific effectiveness on parasites Leishmania braziliensis, Leishmania panamensis, Nippostrongylus braziliensis, Artemia salina and Trichomonas vaginalis, as well as against the Herpes simplex virus.
As it relates directly to cancer, test-tube and animal research demonstrates that Graviola may be an anti-cancer agent. However, no human clinical trials have been performed as of yet. According to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, MSKCC, Graviola extract proved to be effective against liver cancer and breast cancer cells. Naturopath Leslie Taylor, author of “The Healing Power of Rainforest Herbs,” notes that studies show Graviola has an inhibitory effect on enzyme processes in some cancer cell membranes. Graviola only affected cancer cell membranes and not those of healthy cells. This research may lend support to the herb’s traditional use against cancer.
Research done over 20 laboratory tests by one of America’s largest drug manufacturers suggests that the extracts were able to demonstrate the following:
  • Effectively target and kill malignant cells in 12 types of cancer, including colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreatic cancer.
  • The tree compounds proved to be up to 10,000 times stronger in slowing the growth of cancer cells than Adriamycin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic drug
  • What’s more, unlike chemotherapy, the compound extracted from the Graviola tree selectively hunts down and kills only cancer cells. It does not harm healthy cells
Potential Side EffectsWith any product, whether it be natural or chemically derived, we must always look at the side effects. A study published January 2002 in the journal “Movement Disorders” suggests that the high incidence of West Indians with Parkinson’s-type motor problems could be related to a high consumption of Graviola fruit. Researchers performed experiments using neurons in culture, not human subjects, to perform their investigation. While the results are not conclusive, it certainly is something we must take into consideration. More extensive testing has not been done involving humans at this time and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center further cautions that more human research is necessary for the medical community to inform the public on Graviola’s risks as well as its benefits.
While some side effects may exist, eating the fruit and taking supplements is not considered to be unsafe if you are within the limits of the recommended dosages. We are not doctors so please remember to consult a physician if you decide to take Graviola supplements. Although research is lacking and no conclusions have yet to be drawn, you may want to avoid the supplement if you have Parkinson’s disease or another disorder that affects your movements. The same goes if you are pregnant or nursing. While doctors and scientists have not issued a standard dose for Graviola, one manufacturer recommends one 500 mg capsule “a few times a week” with dinner.
At the end of the day the verdict is still out as to whether or not Soursop is in fact effective for human use. While initial studies show it’s effectiveness, including some personal experiences of others who are not featured in this article, there simply has not been enough medical testing done to definitively suggest anything at this point. Strictly in my opinion, I still would rather try out alternative cures like this vs chemotherapy. My number one choice at this point would be a hemp treatment.
Sources:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf9018239?prevSearch=Soursop%2BCancer&searchHistoryKey
http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/herb/graviola
“Journal of Dietary Supplements”; Tropical American Plants in the Treatment of Infectious Diseases; Lana Dvorkin-Camiel and Julia S. Whelan; December 2008
“African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines”; Anti-hyperglycemic Activities of Annona Muricata (Linn); D.O. Adeyemi, et al.; October 2008
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/13/soursop-graviola-cancer-cure-strong-evidnce/

Bras Cause More than Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results of the International Bra-Free Study

If you are a woman, then there is important information you need to know to keep healthy and avoid disease. This is information that you should be told by your doctor and other health professionals, but many of these professionals simply don’t have this information.


Published
 
on
 

IN BRIEF

  • The Facts:
    Written by Sydney Ross Singer, a pioneer of the field of Applied Medical Anthropology, author, & Director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease. Originally published at Greenmedinfo.com, it is shared here with permission.
  • Reflect On:
    Is it time to ditch the bra?
The issue pertains to the wearing of tight clothing. Studies, and common sense, tell us that wearing anything tight is bad for health. Tight clothing compresses our soft body tissues, impairing the function of blood vessels, lymphatic vessels, nerves, and more. Research shows tight neckties, tight pants, girdles, corsets, bras, and other compression garments can cause serious harm.
The purpose of the International Bra-Free Study is to assess the changes a woman experiences once she stops using bras. The study began in 2018 and is still recruiting participants from around the world. Participants pledge to stop using bras and their progress is followed through open and closed-ended questions. The study is ongoing, but we have seen some amazing patterns in the experience of women who stop wearing bras. We believe it is extremely important to share these preliminary findings with the public at this time, hoping to warn as many women as possible about the effect of bra usage on health.
We started our study considering the effect of bras on breasts, and expected improvement in breast pain, cysts, and reduced cancer incidence in our group of bra-free women. What we discovered was that, in addition to the above, we also found that women recovered from many other bodily ailments that seemed completely unrelated to bra usage.
We are discovering the many ways tight bras harm health, including every part of the body. As you will see, bras cause more than breast disease.
Background
Much of fashion is about altering the body to achieve a culturally-defined shape. When tight garments cause disease, the fashion industry opposes the research revealing the disease, and the medical industry gets caught in the middle. Medicine is a business that profits from the detection and treatment of disease, and makes money when people are sick, not well. This conflict of interest helps perpetuate harmful cultural practices, such as wearing tight clothing, since medicine, and the culture in general, are influenced more by industry and money than by health.
Bras have been shown in numerous studies to contribute to breast cancer incidence. While the link between breast cancer and bras has been recognized by doctors since bras became popular, in the early 20th Century, cultural acceptance1 of the bra and extensive promotion by the fashion and lingerie industries have eclipsed information that bras pose a significant threat to health.
When cultural influences from industry and social practices bias human behavior and cause disease, the resulting disease can be called “culturogenic”. Breast cancer is mostly a culturogenic disease, with a small (less than 10%) genetic component, and a large cultural-environmental component. These non-genetic causes of breast cancer include exposure to environmental carcinogens and x-rays(including mammograms), along with direct inhibition of the breast lymphatic system by tight bra usage.
How Bras Cause Breast Cancer
Impaired lymphatics is central to the etiology of breast cancer. The lymphatic system is part of the immune system, and is responsible for the circulation of interstitial fluid. This fluid develops from the bloodstream, delivering nutrition and oxygen to the cells, along with toxins that are in the bloodstream as a result of contaminants in our air, water, and food. The lymphatic system consists of microscopic vessels with one-way valves that lead to lymph nodes. Lymph fluid passively passes into lymphatic vessels to be eliminated from the tissue, inspected by the lymph nodes, and returned to the bloodstream.
Waste products from cellular metabolism, along with toxins delivered to the cells from our petrochemically-polluted air, food, and water, are removed from the tissues by the lymphatic system. In addition, pathogens and cancer cells are also swept through the lymphatic, to the lymph nodes, where an immune response is elicited.
However, when the tiny, easily-compressed lymphatic vessels are constricted by tight bras, this fluid channel becomes restricted, causing a variety of problems. Most women who wear bras experience breast pain and cysts as a result of this lymphatic impairment. In addition, the resulting lymph-stasis and lymph congestion of the tissue results in reduced toxin elimination, causing the progressive toxification of the breasts. The local tissue environment becomes low in oxygen, reducing the body’s ability to process free radicals. The resulting accumulation of endogenous and exogenous toxins increases cancer risk significantly.
According to our 1991-93 US Bra and Breast Cancer Study, published in our book, Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, the bra-cancer link is the major cause of breast cancer. This study concluded that bra-free women have about the same risk of breast cancer as men, while the tighter and longer the bra is worn the higher the risk rises, to 125 times higher for a 24/7 bra user compared to a bra-free woman.
This was the world’s first study that looked directly at the bra-cancer link. A 1991 study from Harvard found pre-menopausal bra-free women had half the risk of breast cancer compared to bra users, but this finding was incidental to the main focus of the study, which was on breast size, handedness, and breast cancer incidence.
Since the release of Dressed to Kill in 1995, there have been dozens of other bra-cancer studies performed internationally that show a significant link. However, this issue is considered “controversial” due to its potential cultural and economic impact, similar to resistance to the tobacco-cancer link back in the mid-20th Century. Current opponents of the bra-cancer link include thought leaders such as the American Cancer Society2 and Susan G. Komen Foundation3, which have publicly called the link scientifically implausible.
Figures Don’t Lie, but Liars Figure
Critics of the bra-cancer link refer to a 2014 study that was commissioned by the National Cancer Institute, which has been denying any possibility of a bra-cancer link since the release of Dressed to Kill. Due to public acceptance of the link, NCI felt it necessary to counter the studies showing a link by funding a study to oppose the link. This study was done at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, which raises money for breast cancer research through promoting “Bra Dash” events4. The study was done on post-menopausal women only, and none of the women were bra-free, so there was no control group. The author of the study, who is a female graduate student who also wore bras, unsurprisingly found no bra-cancer link in her selected group of bra users.
This single, un-reproduced, flawed study has been used by the ACS and Komen Foundation, and others who follow them, as final proof of no bra-cancer link. While conflicting studies are typical of scientific research, this one study has been considered the first and last word on this issue by the cancer “experts” who deny the bra-cancer link. This study clearly serves the interests of the cancer detection and treatment industry, as well as the lingerie industry which fears class action lawsuits for the harms caused by bras.
Nevertheless, since that attempt to stop interest in the bra-cancer link in 2014, there have been many newer studies that show the link. And a recent trend5 in breast cancer research is asking about bra usage as a standard question, just like asking about family history. In fact, a recent study from Iran shows bra usage is a bigger factor in causing breast cancer than family history.6
Culturally, bra usage has been questioned as a result of the #MeToo movement that has been challenging sexism and abuse in the workplace. Many women are now opting for being comfortable and bra-free at work, as well as in their everyday lives. Girls in high school are objecting to dress codes that require bras. And the general legal consensus is that women at work cannot be forced to wear sexualizing clothing, including high heels, short skirts, and bras.7 These trends are making it easier for the culture to accept the fact that bras are causing disease.
Perhaps the biggest impediment to this potentially lifesaving information is the resistance from the medical field, such as the ACS and others who follow their lead. We discuss in the 2018, updated, second edition of Dressed to Kill why we believe there is this resistance to this information, instead of a call for further research. Regardless of the reason, this unscientific, biased opposition to the bra-cancer link is a public health threat.
It is to combat this threat to health that we began the International Bra-Free Study in 2018. This study, which is free to join, is designed to create a cohort of bra-free women in order to see what happens to their breast health over time. While the study accepts women who have been bra-free for years, most of our participants have been bra users, allowing us to see what changes happen to their breasts and overall health once they stop using bras.
While this study is expected to help women avoid breast cancer and other breast disease associated with bra usage, the women in our study could also be available for other breast studies which require bra-free women. One big flaw in breast cancer and other breast disease research is that bra usage has been ignored as a factor. This is as scientifically flawed as ignoring smoking when doing lung disease research, which was the case prior to the acceptance of the tobacco-cancer link.
The 2014 Hutchinson study did not include any bra-free women as a control group, which that study admits is a flaw. They rationalize that flaw by saying that it was nearly impossible to find bra-free women for their study. Of course, you cannot do a valid breast cancer study looking at the bra-cancer link without including a control group of bra-free women for comparison. So instead of conducting poor breast cancer research without control groups, we hope to offer our study participants for possible inclusion in their future studies.
The response from the medical industry was swift after we announced our International Bra-Free Study. The American Council on Science and Health, a public relations firm that aims to dismiss and discredit all those who challenge the interests of the drug industry, published a hit piece against me and the study. Ironically, they claimed8 the study is flawed by not including a control group of bra users.
Nevertheless, despite the resistance by the medical industry over the years, many women have heard about the bra-cancer link and have stopped wearing bras. Many have joined the International Bra-Free Study. We expect that this group of women will have a lower incidence of breast cancer than the general public, which is our control group.
However, we have discovered something unexpected in the study. There have been some definite health changes following the elimination of bra usage, and while the study is ongoing, we felt it important to report these surprising findings.
Bras Constrict More Than the Lymphatics
First, we must explain that tight bras compress more than just the lymphatics. They also compress nerves and muscles. In fact, research has shown that wearing tight bras impairs the autonomic nervous system, leading to a host of problems.
For example, researchers have found that tight bras essentially create a full-body stress response. According to one study9, “The main results can be summarized as follows: (1) urinary excretion of adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol was facilitated, and the amounts of urinary excretion were significantly higher when TC (tight clothing) were worn. Heart rate was significantly higher in the TC group; (2) nocturnal urinary melatonin excretion was significantly greater in the TC group. These results are discussed in terms of an enhancement of diurnal sympathetic nervous system activity caused by pressure on the skin produced by tight clothing.”
Another study of tight bras found that constipation is a result10, presumably due to suppression of the parasympathetic nervous system and intestinal mobility.
Another study11 found that women who were bra-free had shorter menstrual cycles, averaging 30 days, compared to bra users, whose menstrual cycle averaged 45 days.
A study also found that tight clothing hampers breathing12, reducing lung expansion, inhalation volume, and deep breathing.
Research has also shown that breasts lift and tone once the bra is no longer worn.13 The study author concluded, “Medically, physiologically, anatomically – breasts gain no benefit from being denied gravity. On the contrary, they get saggier with a bra.” While this scientific finding stands in contrast to bra-industry propaganda claiming that bras prevent droop, the science behind the bra-causes-droop effect is that reliance on the bra results in weakened suspensory ligaments and more droop. Once the bra is no longer worn, the ligaments strengthen and the breasts lift and tone. In addition. bras make the breasts heavy with excess fluid due to lymphatic impairment, resulting in more pendulous breasts.
Surprising Results of the International Bra-Free Study
I must admit that before we started the International Bra-Free Study in 2018, we thought we already knew what to expect when women stopped wearing bras. Since we first announced the results of our research in 1995, women have stopped wearing bras and have reported to us that their breast pain and cysts disappeared. In fact, this surprising recovery was rapid, within a month of no longer wearing bras. Many times, women felt a big improvement in pain and cysts within days of ending the bra-caused constriction of their breasts. Indeed, this tangible self-demonstration of the harm caused by bras has kept this issue alive despite denials of any ill effects from bras by the cancer industry.
But we had no idea how many other problems would improve by not wearing bras, until we started the International Bra-Free Study. While the study is ongoing, we feel that it is imperative that women learn how bras can interfere with their health, to take proper precautionary measures.
From the hundreds of women who are part of this study, with more joining daily, it has become clear that bras cause more than breast disease.
Everyone has reported reduction of breast pain and cysts, if they had them before starting the study. In no case has breast pain or cysts worsened.
Most report that their breasts are less saggy, and are rounder. Some report that their nipples now have more feeling than when they wore bras.
Every woman reports that she breathes easier without a bra.
Most women report that their digestion has improved.
Women who had shoulder pain with a bra report loss of that pain once being bra-free.
Many women report loss of headaches since being bra-free.
Most women report having more confidence in public without a bra, and a greater sense of confidence and empowerment.
Women in the study report they have no problem being bra-free at work, and appreciate the comfort.
Most women report that they like their breasts more since being bra-free.
Most report friends and family supporting their decision to be bra-free.
Surprisingly, being bra-free does not seem to alter these women’s sex lives.
Some women reported that their menstrual cycles became shorter and normalized after being bra-free.
Importantly, not one participant has experienced any negative effects of being bra-free.
We also found that once women freed themselves from bras, they began to free themselves from other oppressive aspects of their lives. As one participant explained, “I am more confident, I like my breasts now, and I want to advocate for girls and women to understand the link between bras and cancer and how easy, rewarding and healthful it can be to feel this comfortable. I am more empowered now, too.”
To Be Continued…
It should be clear that when you use a garment that compresses and constricts the lymphatic system and the autonomic nervous system, you are potentially altering the physiology of the breasts and of the entire body. Breast cancer may be the end disease for the breasts, but there will also be other disease conditions caused by tight bras, and other tight clothing, that can lead to nervous, hormonal, and circulatory problems.
When we first researched the bra-cancer link, we were surprised at how little research there was on the subject. Many people assume there can’t be a bra-cancer link, or they would have heard about it. People assume that the American Cancer Society would be warning women about bras if there was research that linked bra usage to cancer, just like the ACS finally got to warning people about smoking (after taking decades to finally accept the link.) But we are not just dealing with smoking. When we talk about bras, we are talking about breasts. And in our breast-obsessed culture, breasts are sexualized, objectified, molded, squeezed, sucked, compressed, constricted, pushed-up, tattooed, pierced, implanted, cut off, and framed in a lacy bra. It’s a cultural package that interferes with science and common sense. And even as doctors smoked cigarettes in the 1950s and promoted their use, doctors today wear bras and promote their use, oblivious to the obvious.
We are all victims of a bra-using culture. As a result, there is an epidemic of breast pain and cysts than affects more than half of women who use bras. Most of this is caused by the bra and improves rapidly once bra usage ends.
Some women will develop breast cancer as a result of a bra-constricted lymphatic system and exposure to cancer-causing chemicals, which consequently become concentrated in their breasts.
Radiation damage and other harmful impacts, such as trauma, to the breasts cannot be as effectively repaired when the lymphatics are constricted by bras. And the immune system cannot as effectively fight developing cancer cells without good lymphatic circulation.
Through the International Bra-Free Study, we have also seen confirmation of other research into the effects of tight clothing, including bras, on various bodily functions, due to impacts on the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. This means that women are suffering from constipation, shallow breathing, increased stress, menstrual abnormalities, and other possible problems because of their bras.
How tight is tight? If it leaves a mark in the skin, then it is too tight.
While the impact of bras on the autonomic nervous system has been known for decades, it has been largely ignored, along with research showing the other health hazards of bras. When a carcinogen is part of the fabric of the culture, it takes ripping the culture apart to remove it.
Denial is a much easier and profitable strategy for the industries that sell bras, and sell disease detection and treatment services.
We encourage women everywhere to join the International Bra-Free Study and see for themselves, on themselves, how chronic health problems that plagued them for years could be related to the cultural practice of wearing tight bras and other tight clothing. You have nothing to lose but your discomfort and chronic health problems, and this almost certainly will help you prevent breast cancer.
Join the International Bra-Free Study at https://brafreestudy.com.
SOME STUDIES THAT SUPPORT THE BRA-CANCER LINK14
• 1991 Harvard study (CC Hsieh, D Trichopoulos (1991). Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk. European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology 27(2):131-135.). This study found that, “Premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users…”
• 1991-93 U.S. Bra and Breast Cancer Study by Singer and Grismaijer, published in Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras (Second Edition, Square One Publishers, 2018). Found that bra-free women have about the same incidence of breast cancer as men. 24/7 bra wearing increases incidence over 100 times that of a brafree woman.
• Singer and Grismaijer did a follow-up study in Fiji, published in Get It Off! (ISCD Press, 2000). Found 24 case histories of breast cancer in a culture where half the women are bra-free. The women getting breast cancer were all wearing bras. Given women with the same genetics and diet and living in the same village, the ones getting breast disease were the ones wearing bras for work.
• A 2009 Chinese study (Zhang AQ, Xia JH, Wang Q, Li WP, Xu J, Chen ZY, Yang JM (2009). [Risk factors of breast cancer in women in Guangdong and the countermeasures]. In Chinese. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2009 Jul;29(7):1451-3.) found that NOT sleeping in a bra was protective against breast cancer, lowering the risk 60%.
• 2011 a study was published, in Spanish, confirming that bras are causing breast disease and cancer. It found that underwired and push-up bras are the most harmful, but any bra that leaves red marks or indentations may cause disease.
• 2015 Comparative study of breast cancer risk factors at Kenyatta National Hospital and the Nairobi Hospital J. Afr. Cancer (2015) 7:41-46. This study found a significant bracancer link in pre-and post-menopausal women.
• 2016 Wearing a Tight Bra for Many Hours a Day is Associated with Increased Risk of Breast Cancer Adv Oncol Res Treat 1: 105. This is the first epidemiological study to look at bra tightness and time worn, and found a significant bra-cancer link.
• 2016 Brassiere wearing and breast cancer risk: A systematic review and metaanalysis World J Meta-Anal. Aug 26, 2015; 3(4): 193-205 This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between 8 areas of brassiere-wearing practices and the risk of breast cancer. Twelve case-control studies met inclusion criteria for review. The meta-analysis shows statistically significant findings to support the association between brassiere wearing during sleep and breast cancer risk.
• 2018 Lymph stasis promotes tumor growth Journal of Dermatological Science “(t)hese findings come as no surprise to us who for a long time have been aware that alterations in regional lymphatic flow may produce dysregulation in skin immune function and consequent oncogenesis. In fact, since 2002, our team has held the view that lymphedematous areas are immunologically vulnerable sites for the development of neoplasms as well as infections and immune-mediated diseases. In recent years, increasing evidence has confirmed this assumption.”

References
1 For example, Dr. John Mayo, one of the founders of the Mayo Clinic, wrote in the article “Susceptibility to Cancer” in the 1931 Annals of Surgery, that “Cancer of the breast occurs largely among civilized women. In those countries where breasts are allowed to be exposed, that is, are not compressed or irritated by clothing, it is rare.” A bra patent in 1950 stated, “Even in the proper breast size, most brassieres envelop or bind the breast in such a fashion that normal circulation and freedom of movement is constricted. Many cases of breast cancer have been attributed to such breast constriction as caused by improperly fitted brassieres.” (Taken from the 2018 edition of Dressed to Kill.)
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/09/22/bras-cause-more-than-breast-cancer-preliminary-results-of-the-international-bra-free-study/