Cancer Update Email -- It's a Hoax!
Now, to respond to Johns Hopkins: First of all, I find that a lot of what is said here is “doublespeak.” Take, for instance, how the issue of “Everyone has cancer cells” is addressed. They deny this, but make the statement, “inevitably everyone has some abnormal or atypical cells that possess some of the characteristics of cancer cells, most resolve themselves and never result in cancer.” Hmm, seems to me that this is saying pretty much the same thing as numbers one and two in the original list. Recently, I was reading a book by a registered dietitian, PhD, university professor. A statement he made was not strictly true according to the medical understanding of it, but the end result was the same. So, might I conclude that just because a lay person does not state something exactly as a doctor might state it, does not make it any less valid? This is how I feel about most of the original list: lots of valid information, just not necessarily phrased in the most strictly correct medical terms.
The Johns Hopkins website states that “cancer is a genetic disease.” I find this statement problematic. While it does go on to explain that the genetic mutations can be either inherited or more commonly acquired, this page is supposed to be for the lay person seeking clarification. When the average layperson reads “genetic,” they automatically think “inherited” and most cancers are not genetic in this sense. Genetics and Cancer
Regarding cancer and the immune system: while we may or may not have exact research stating that a strong immune system fights cancer, there are some interesting points. First, several cancers have already been linked to viruses (Viral Cancers) and we all know that a strong immune system fights viruses. Second, some of the acknowledged factors in cancer causation (environmental factors, smoking, poor diet, as stated by Johns Hopkins) are also factors that negatively impact the immune system.
Where supplements in the treatment of cancer are concerned, I will admit that there might not be much research to support their use. But this is not because of a lack of validity. It’s because the companies that usually sponsor research don’t stand to gain much by finding out supplements aid in curing cancer. See this article: Cancer Drugs Experiments to verify that yes, a lot of promising cancer therapies are not investigated due to lack of funding. I’m not a big fan of supplements if they substitute for the changes in diet and lifestyle that I believe are necessary for cancer treatment and prevention. But if I had the option of trying something that might cause me mild discomfort over something that would make me throw up continuously and my hair fall out, etc. I think I’ll take the supplements.
Wow, I’m really dumbfounded that Johns Hopkins would deny that chemotherapy and radiation harm normal cells. First, let me share some experiences. Years ago, I read an article about a woman who was wrongly diagnosed with cancer. After going through all the chemotherapy, etc., she found out that not only did she never have cancer, but that she was now more likely to get it because of the cancer treatment she underwent. When I worked in a hospital and we had to dispose of used IV tubing and solution bags, even if we used them to give medications (antibiotics, narcotics, antiemetics), we just put them in the regular garbage. I have never worked oncology, but I do remember one time when the docs decided to administer IV chemotherapy on the surgical unit where I worked. All of the IV paraphernalia had to be disposed of in biohazard containers. Why was that, if chemotherapy doesn’t harm normal cells? There is one chemotherapy drug (methotrexate) that is also given in smaller doses for arthritis. Our protocol for administering it by injection is to wear a gown and two pairs of gloves. We don’t allow anyone who is pregnant or might be pregnant to administer it. We used to have to draw it up from the vial, in which case we also had to wear a mask and preferably eye protection to avoid inhaling any droplets or getting them in our eyes. Now, we require prefilled syringes and the syringes are filled using a system that vents any vapours or droplets away from the person filling the syringes. Pretty excessive if this stuff does not harm normal cells. Funny, too, that in my 2006 Lippincott’s Nursing Drug Guide, under Adverse Effects is “cancer.” Hmm, a drug used to treat cancer can cause cancer. That’s not possible, is it? In this same book, under the adverse effects of Vincristine, another chemotherapy drug is “death with serious overdose.” Yes, in bold letters. Well, I thought this was true of any drug. People can and do die by overdosing with Tylenol, Ativan, Valium, but this adverse effect is not listed under any of these drugs. Even one of the most toxic drugs I know – digoxin, which has a narrow therapeutic margin (in other words, the amount required to treat you and the amount required to poison you are not too far apart), does not have “death with serious overdose” listed in the adverse effects. No, chemotherapy’s not harmful to healthy cells, is it? Radiation? Let’s be realistic – why do you think that they make you wear a lead apron when you go for an x-ray of an extremity? To cover vital body parts so that they don’t get irradiated unnecessarily. I was dating a man who was diagnosed with throat cancer. He had both radiation and chemotherapy. In preparation for radiation, he had to be fitted for a mask/shield to protect vital tissue from the radiation. No, radiation doesn’t harm normal tissue, not at all.
Dare I say it? Claiming that chemotherapy and radiation do not harm normal cells is an outright lie. Do I really want to trust my health to someone who would lie to convince me of the safety of a treatment?
I find it kind of ironic that the Johns Hopkins website denies that certain foods feed cancer, but then goes on to recommend what to eat and drink to prevent cancer. Does that even make sense? For your enlightenment, go to google scholar and research it for yourself. Here’s some of what I found:
Johns Hopkins also denies that cancer is a disease of the body, mind and spirit. This is just typical of allopathic medicine which separates body, mind and spirit and treats primarily physical symptoms instead of looking at health wholistically. Here are some links on attitude, personality and cancer:
In my observations as a healthcare professional, there is too intimate a link between mind and body to be ignored.
In 2000, one of my sisters had a mastectomy for breast cancer. Because of the type of cancer she had, the oncologist recommended that she receive both chemotherapy and radiation following the surgery. My sister refused both, opting instead to use a combination of supplements and diet. Although she has not been as strict about her diet as I would prefer, she remains cancer free to this day, 13 years later (not the dubious 5-year survival rate that the cancer establishment deems as a cure).
In 1997, my mother was diagnosed with cancer. In early 1998, we learned that it had metastasized to the spine and she was deemed terminal. However, the doctors said that there was a possibility that she might end up paralysed as a result of the spinal metastases and recommended radiation. Not sure if anyone ever bothered to ask if they really thought she was going to live long enough to get paralysed. However, they then came up with another excuse for giving her radiation – to control the pain. When the radiation actually increased the pain, it was voted that Laura should attend the next radiation session with Mom and Dad to find out what was what. I was prepared to go for the jugular when the doctor tried to “pacify” me by saying that if it was his mother, he would have this radiation done, never actually giving me an answer as to what they hoped to accomplish by it. My mother, however, who never liked anyone to create a “scene” or unpleasantness, prevented me from going down that doctor’s throat and ripping out his tonsils and rationalized that since there was only one more treatment, she didn’t want a fuss made and would endure the treatment. I still don’t know why they were treating my mother with radiation. But do you want to know what I think? I think that because she was older (though 73 is not old in my books), of the generation that rarely questioned the doctor’s authority or judgment and dying anyway, they used her for a guinea pig: “Ah, let’s try this and see what happens. After all, she’s dying anyway, so what harm can we do? And we might get some interesting results that we can publish in a medical journal.” My mother’s whole cancer experience left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. And very little (if any) faith in the members of the “cancer establishment.” Would I trust this kind of person to make decisions or recommendations for cancer treatment that are actually in my best interests? Not on your life! Especially since the response on the Johns Hopkins website is nebulous doublespeak not necessarily based on current research.