Monday, April 15, 2013

Pineapple Enzyme kills cancer.

Research: Pineapple Enzyme Kills Cancer Without Killing You
(The Best Years in Life) Every once in a while a study pops up on the National Library of Medicine's bibliographic database known as MEDLINE that not only confirms the therapeutic relevance of natural substances in cancer treatment, but blows the conventional approach out of the water. Published in 2007 in the journal Planta Medica, researchers found that an enzyme extracted from pineapple stems known as bromelain was superior to the chemo-agent 5-fluorauracil in treating cancer in the animal model. The researchers stated:

"This antitumoral effect [bromelain] was superior to that of 5-FU [5-fluorouracil], whose survival index was approximately 263 %, relative to the untreated control."

What is so remarkable about this research is that 5-FU has been used as a cancer treatment for nearly 40 years, and has been relatively unsuccessful due to its less than perfect selectivity at killing cancer, often killing and/or irreversibly damaging healthy cells and tissue, as well.

As a highly toxic, fluoride-bound form of the nucleic acid uracil, a normal component of RNA, the drug is supposed to work by tricking more rapidly dividing cells -- which include both cancer and healthy intestinal, hair follicle, and immune cells -- into taking it up, thereby inhibiting (read: poisoning) RNA replication enzymes and RNA synthesis.

The material safety data sheet (MSDS) for 5-FU states:

The dose at which 50% of the animals given the drug die is 115mg/kg, or the equivalent of 7.8 grams for a 150 lb adult human.
Keep in mind that a 7.5 gram dose of 5-FU, which is the weight of 3 pennies, would kill 50% of the humans given it. Bromelain's MSDS, on the other hand, states the LD50 to be 10,000 mg/kg, or the equivalent 1.5 lbs of bromelain for a 150lb adult, which means it is 3 orders of magnitude safer!

How then, can something as innocuous as the enzyme from the stem/core of a pineapple be superior to a drug that millions of cancers patients over the past 40 years have placed their hopes of recovery on, as well as exchanging billions of dollars for?

There is a well-known effect associated with a wide range of natural compounds called "selective cytotoxicity," whereby they are able to induce programmed cell death (the graceful self-disassembly known as apoptosis) within the cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells and tissue unharmed. No FDA-approved chemotherapy drug on the market today has this indispensable property (because chemicals don't have behave like natural compounds), which is why cancer treatment is still in the dark ages, often destroying the quality of life, and accelerating the death of those who undergo it, often unwittingly. When a person dies following conventional cancer treatment it is all too easy to "blame the victim" and simply write that patient's cancer off as "chemo-resistant," or "exceptionally aggressive," when in fact the non-selective nature of the chemotoxic agent is what ultimately lead to their death.

Keep in mind that bromelain, like all natural substances, will never receive FDA drug approval. Capital, at the present time, does not flow into the development of non-patentable (i.e. non-profitable) cancer therapies, even if they work, are safe and extremely affordable. This is simply the nature of the beast. Until we compel our government to utilize our tax dollars to invest in this type of research, there will be no level playing field in cancer treatment, or any treatment offered through the conventional medical establishment, for that matter. Or, some of us may decide to take our health into our own hands, and use the research, already freely available on possible natural cancer treatment, to inform our treatment decisions without the guidance of the modern day equivalent of the "priest" of the body, the conventional oncologist, who increasingly fills the description of an "applied pharmacologist/toxicologist" - nothing more, nothing less.

To view additional research on the potential therapeutic properties of bromelain in over 30 health conditions, visit the open source, natural medical resource page on bromelain.
See also:

Friday, April 12, 2013

Prostate cancer disinformation...

Prostate Cancer - Almost everything you've been told is wrong
Posted By: Maryhrt [Send E-Mail]
Date: Wednesday, 10-Apr-2013 14:34:11
Medical announcement reveals: Almost everything you've been told about prostate cancer is wrong
(NaturalNews) Men, especially after the age of 50, have long been told they need to be screened regularly for the dreaded disease of prostate cancer with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. The reason? Because if caught early, this common cancer can be treated before it supposedly kills. Sound familiar? If you think these are the facts about prostate cancer, it's time to learn the real truth.
None other than a large mainstream medical group, the American College of Physicians (ACP), has just released a statement changing recommendations for prostate cancer screening. And while the official statement emphasizes that the ACP is saying patients need to be better informed and work with doctors to decide on screening, let's take a look at the far more important facts revealed in the announcement.
Why is the ACP saying men between the ages of 50 and 69 should discuss PSA tests before submitting to them? Because there are a myriad of problems with the expensive and fear-producing tests. As the ACP media statement says, the PSA test has "limited benefits and substantial harms."
Harm outweighs benefits
"Only men between the ages of 50 and 69 who express a clear preference for screening should have the PSA test. For most of these men, the harms will outweigh the benefits," said ACP president David L. Bronson, MD, in a media statement.
How specific is the PSA when it comes to revealing cancer? Not very.
The "Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Guidance Statement from the American College of Physicians" paper just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, reveals serious problems with the PSA test. For example, PSA test results may be low when there is cancer. But, far more commonly, PSA results may be high because of an enlarged prostate but not because of any life threatening malignancy.
In fact, according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), it is common for the prostate gland to become enlarged as a man ages, a condition known as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) or benign prostatic hypertrophy. So what is essentially a common change in the body that goes along with aging in many men can set off alarm bells when it causes PSA levels to rise, sending men for more testing and potentially unneeded -- but harmful -- treatment.
Most prostate cancers are not serious, never kill
Following an elevated PSA test, a prostate biopsy is often ordered and it's not the simple, risk-free procedure many people assume it to be. The new guideline statement says this: "The biopsy involves multiple needles being inserted into the prostate under local anesthesia, and there is a small risk of infection or significant bleeding as well as risk of hospitalization."
But isn't it worth the risk if cancer is discovered? In the majority of cases, no. According to Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, Director of Clinical Policy for the ACP, only a small number of prostate cancers are serious and can cause death.
"The vast majority of prostate cancers are slow-growing and do not cause death. It is important to balance the small benefits from screening with harms such as the possibility of incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and other side effects that result from certain forms of aggressive treatment," Dr. Qaseem said in a media statement.
Specifically, if cancer is diagnosed (no matter how unlikely the cancer is to ever cause death), it will often be treated with surgery or radiation. The ACP statement points out these treatments include a risk of death with surgery, loss of sexual function (approximately 37 percent higher risk), and loss of control of urination (approximately 11 percent higher risk) compared to no surgery.
The new ACP guidelines recommends against PSA testing at all in average-risk men younger than 50, in men older than 69, or in men who have a life expectancy of less than 10 to 15 years because the harms of prostate cancer screening outweigh the benefits.
As NaturalNews has previously reported, there is another possible downside to prostate cancer treatments scientists are studying. According to findings by Chawnshang Chang, PhD, director of the George Whipple Laboratory for Cancer Research at the University of Rochester Medical Center, a common form of hormone therapy for prostate cancer may actually spur cancer cells to grow and spread.
Sources for this article include: Cancer