Many health-conscious readers already know there's a lot of evidence showing that carotenoids which are relatives of vitamin A, vitamin A itself, vitamin E, the mineral selenium, omega-3 in fish oil, and dietary fiber seem to protect some people from various kinds of cancers.
But there's more good news about some natural cancer fighters you may not have heard much about.
Getting more vitamin D may help people living in areas of high air pollution avoid cancers of the breast and colon. Less sunshine means lower levels of vitamin D in the bloodstream. Lower levels of serum vitamin D are linked with a five-fold increased risk of colon cancer and doubled risk of breast cancer.
After studying cancer rates in 35,000 men and women in several cities, taking at least 400 IUs (International Units) of vitamin each day. That's the same as 10 micrograms of cholecalciferol, the chemical name for vitamin D. Instead of taking it in a pill form, it is advisable to drink at least four glasses of vitamin D-enriched milk each day.
Of course, as always, check with your doctor before taking any supplements or trying to medicate yourself. Eating strawberries, grapes and Brazil nuts may help your body ward off cell damage from cancer-causing chemicals known as carcinogens, according to some research. Many kinds of nuts and berries contain ellagic acid that snoops out cancer-causing chemicals floating in the bloodstream and neutralizes them.
In tests on mouse and human lung tissue, the nutty substance also seems to help keep normal cells from becoming cancerous. But it only works when added to the system just before or during the time the body is exposed to the carcinogens.
Supplements of pure ellagic acid don't work well because the body has trouble absorbing the concentrated version. The natural stuff in nuts and berries is the most easily absorbed form.
Cheese, milk and even some kinds of cooked meats including charboiled hamburgers contain a substance that burrows into your body tissue and sets up anticancer guard posts inside the ells themselves.
The anticancer substance is a form of linoleic acid, a kind of fatty acid present in large concentrations in cheese and grilled ground beef. Linoleic acid is one of three polyunsaturated fatty acids that seem to be very efficient killers of cancer cells.
But since this form linoleic acid comes buried in a food's fat including the saturated kind that can load up your blood with high levels of cholesterol.
Rudy's passion is to write on variety of subjects. Please visit his latest website at Bissell steam cleaner which contains the reviews and deals on Bissell vacuum cleaners and other information about steam cleaners and vacuum cleaners.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Rudy_Chong
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
How to Stop Your Body From Making Cancer
Our bodies don't get cancer; our bodies make cancer. That is we have made it ourselves. How did we accomplish that you may ask? Simply by not respecting the laws of Mother Nature. It's the way we are now living that's causing so much of it now days. Cancer is well understood and it is not some dreaded disease that science can't fathom. Its cause is the result of the violation of natural laws.
What our medical system wants us to believe is it's not our fault and there is nothing we could have done to prevent it. That is not so! The facts are cancer has been growing in your body for many years, and it's you that has caused it. In most cases it takes about 10 years before it's of sufficient size to be detected and that means your cancer has been under construction for a long time.
If you're interested here is a recipe for making cancer;
* Expose your self to large amounts of radiation in the form of x-rays and ct scans.
* Make sure most of your food is processed.
* Eating cancer causing food which contains chemical preservatives, e.g. salami.
* Eating lots of refined sugar which is cancer cells natural food.
* Avoiding anti-cancer food which is fresh food in its natural state.
* Using too many toxic chemicals, many of them in personal care products.
* Avoiding natural sunlight.
* Live a sedentary lifestyle.
So when a doctor tells a patient there was nothing they could have done to stop the cancer that is not true. A doctor is only repeating what he knows and they don't know how cancer is made or even the causes of it. Cancer is a degenerative disease and all degenerative diseases can be reversed, it is never too late to do something about it.
Cancer is a modern day problem, there was very little of it 40 to 50 years ago. It is only man and the animals he controls that are troubled by cancer. It is a complex disease and man will never fully understand it and he doesn't need to. All you have to do if you're dealing with cancer is to just rely on nature to help you remove it. Nature produces the perfect food for humans which is our medicine and all you have to do is to eat it. Nature provides the cure for cancer.
To remove cancer once it has been diagnosed you must respect the laws of Mother Nature and eat and live as we are supposed to.
Here is the recipe for removing cancer;
* Eat a plant based diet.
* Make sure the food you eat is fresh and no one has interfered with it.
* Get a little exercise everyday, it's important.
* Avoid chemicals, we are surrounded by them.
* Have a positive outlook.
Remember your body strives to heal itself automatically every single day. What you need to do to assist it is to remove the barrier that's been stopping it from healing. A strict natural diet and other simple lifestyle changes will do this.
Alan Wighton is an experienced natural therapist specialising in nutrition. He has researched all aspects of cancer and how our diet is closely related to the disease. For more common sense information on effective ways to overcome cancer using the powerful natural healing ability of the human body; please visit http://www.cancerhealed.com
http://www.cancerhealed.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Alan_Wighton
What our medical system wants us to believe is it's not our fault and there is nothing we could have done to prevent it. That is not so! The facts are cancer has been growing in your body for many years, and it's you that has caused it. In most cases it takes about 10 years before it's of sufficient size to be detected and that means your cancer has been under construction for a long time.
If you're interested here is a recipe for making cancer;
* Expose your self to large amounts of radiation in the form of x-rays and ct scans.
* Make sure most of your food is processed.
* Eating cancer causing food which contains chemical preservatives, e.g. salami.
* Eating lots of refined sugar which is cancer cells natural food.
* Avoiding anti-cancer food which is fresh food in its natural state.
* Using too many toxic chemicals, many of them in personal care products.
* Avoiding natural sunlight.
* Live a sedentary lifestyle.
So when a doctor tells a patient there was nothing they could have done to stop the cancer that is not true. A doctor is only repeating what he knows and they don't know how cancer is made or even the causes of it. Cancer is a degenerative disease and all degenerative diseases can be reversed, it is never too late to do something about it.
Cancer is a modern day problem, there was very little of it 40 to 50 years ago. It is only man and the animals he controls that are troubled by cancer. It is a complex disease and man will never fully understand it and he doesn't need to. All you have to do if you're dealing with cancer is to just rely on nature to help you remove it. Nature produces the perfect food for humans which is our medicine and all you have to do is to eat it. Nature provides the cure for cancer.
To remove cancer once it has been diagnosed you must respect the laws of Mother Nature and eat and live as we are supposed to.
Here is the recipe for removing cancer;
* Eat a plant based diet.
* Make sure the food you eat is fresh and no one has interfered with it.
* Get a little exercise everyday, it's important.
* Avoid chemicals, we are surrounded by them.
* Have a positive outlook.
Remember your body strives to heal itself automatically every single day. What you need to do to assist it is to remove the barrier that's been stopping it from healing. A strict natural diet and other simple lifestyle changes will do this.
Alan Wighton is an experienced natural therapist specialising in nutrition. He has researched all aspects of cancer and how our diet is closely related to the disease. For more common sense information on effective ways to overcome cancer using the powerful natural healing ability of the human body; please visit http://www.cancerhealed.com
http://www.cancerhealed.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Alan_Wighton
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Natural Cancer Therapies - Comparing Like With Like
The media often deals harshly with a person who has cancer who turns down medical treatment, turns to natural cancer therapies and subsequently dies. The success of a natural cancer treatment is measured on whether the person who is ill survives a natural lifespan. But this is not the case for medical treatments. Medical treatments such as surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy often use much "softer" evidence of success.
When comparing results it is important to make sure that like is compared with like.
Success in radiotherapy and chemotherapy is often measured, not in terms of improved longevity but in terms of the regression of the tumor. There is an assumption that if the tumor reduces in size that the patient must do better in the longer term. This idea seems to be common sense, but it has not been proven to be the case.
It is clear that those who respond to chemotherapy do better than those who do not. But there is no research which shows that a reduction of tumor size is linked to improved longevity when compared to those who are not treated. And radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatments cannot be said to be effective if this case is not made.
Would the patient (and his family) feel that regression of the tumor was a "successful outcome" if he still died in the same time frame as if he was not treated, and if he suffered terribly from side effects of the treatments during the process?
A second measurement is the number of people who survive to five years. A doctor who gets more patients to the five year mark than his colleagues might feel a personal triumph but the family whose mother dies at five years and three days will feel just as devastated as if the mother dies three days prior to the five years. In the first case the patient is designated as having a successful outcome and in the second as a less successful one. But for the family it is the same.
A third definition the medical profession use is the length of apparent tumor-free time until metastases appear. They call this disease free time, but if the disease commonly returns it seems disingenuous to pretend that the treatment made the patient disease-free. However the point as issue here is whether tumor-free time is a success if the patient then goes on to die in the same time frame as they would if they had not been treated?
Many medical professionals get very anxious and often very annoyed if you ask for evidence that the recommended treatment works. They may well spray around wonderful sounding percentages to "prove" that their recommendations will give a better chance.
However there have also been many a time when the doctor (reluctantly) hands over the research only to find that the patient or a member of their family dissects the research to find that the wonderful percentage improvements relate not to longevity but to tumor regression or to increased tumor-free time.
So if your doctor is making percentage claims of success for a particular treatment ask what this means in terms of additional years of survival. If he will not tell you or cannot tell you, then the probability is that the research does not show such an increase. If he does claim years of increased longevity then ask him for a copy of the research that says this. After all he is asking you to undertake treatment with potentially horrendous side effects (not to mention the cost to the family).
If the increased longevity is measured in only a few months then only you will know if the six to twelve months of treatments and side effects is worth two to four months of extra life, remembering of course that you might be one of the group of people who do not get that extra time.
If longevity with a high quality of life is your aim then think carefully as to how much the offered medical treatment may increase your longevity alongside the high cost of treatment side effects. It is a perfectly valid choice to decide against medical treatment for the time being and to choose to work with natural cancer therapies instead.
Remember that while natural cancer therapies have not been proven to work to the satisfaction of the medical profession neither have their own treatments (except in a few cases) been shown to be effective in treating cancer. This means that those tens of thousands of cases who recover may well have recovered anyway. Self healing is a natural process, built into our bodies.
Therefore any natural cancer therapies which support an improved immune system and a happier, more satisfying quality of life must be worthy of consideration.
Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. The web site http://www.cancerremedies.org discusses aspects of natural cancer treatment and remedies for good general health.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Harriet_Denz-Penhey
When comparing results it is important to make sure that like is compared with like.
Success in radiotherapy and chemotherapy is often measured, not in terms of improved longevity but in terms of the regression of the tumor. There is an assumption that if the tumor reduces in size that the patient must do better in the longer term. This idea seems to be common sense, but it has not been proven to be the case.
It is clear that those who respond to chemotherapy do better than those who do not. But there is no research which shows that a reduction of tumor size is linked to improved longevity when compared to those who are not treated. And radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatments cannot be said to be effective if this case is not made.
Would the patient (and his family) feel that regression of the tumor was a "successful outcome" if he still died in the same time frame as if he was not treated, and if he suffered terribly from side effects of the treatments during the process?
A second measurement is the number of people who survive to five years. A doctor who gets more patients to the five year mark than his colleagues might feel a personal triumph but the family whose mother dies at five years and three days will feel just as devastated as if the mother dies three days prior to the five years. In the first case the patient is designated as having a successful outcome and in the second as a less successful one. But for the family it is the same.
A third definition the medical profession use is the length of apparent tumor-free time until metastases appear. They call this disease free time, but if the disease commonly returns it seems disingenuous to pretend that the treatment made the patient disease-free. However the point as issue here is whether tumor-free time is a success if the patient then goes on to die in the same time frame as they would if they had not been treated?
Many medical professionals get very anxious and often very annoyed if you ask for evidence that the recommended treatment works. They may well spray around wonderful sounding percentages to "prove" that their recommendations will give a better chance.
However there have also been many a time when the doctor (reluctantly) hands over the research only to find that the patient or a member of their family dissects the research to find that the wonderful percentage improvements relate not to longevity but to tumor regression or to increased tumor-free time.
So if your doctor is making percentage claims of success for a particular treatment ask what this means in terms of additional years of survival. If he will not tell you or cannot tell you, then the probability is that the research does not show such an increase. If he does claim years of increased longevity then ask him for a copy of the research that says this. After all he is asking you to undertake treatment with potentially horrendous side effects (not to mention the cost to the family).
If the increased longevity is measured in only a few months then only you will know if the six to twelve months of treatments and side effects is worth two to four months of extra life, remembering of course that you might be one of the group of people who do not get that extra time.
If longevity with a high quality of life is your aim then think carefully as to how much the offered medical treatment may increase your longevity alongside the high cost of treatment side effects. It is a perfectly valid choice to decide against medical treatment for the time being and to choose to work with natural cancer therapies instead.
Remember that while natural cancer therapies have not been proven to work to the satisfaction of the medical profession neither have their own treatments (except in a few cases) been shown to be effective in treating cancer. This means that those tens of thousands of cases who recover may well have recovered anyway. Self healing is a natural process, built into our bodies.
Therefore any natural cancer therapies which support an improved immune system and a happier, more satisfying quality of life must be worthy of consideration.
Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. The web site http://www.cancerremedies.org discusses aspects of natural cancer treatment and remedies for good general health.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Harriet_Denz-Penhey
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
