Cancer: causes and cures

  • Thread starter Thread starter alchemy
  • Start date Start date
Re: Curry kills gullet cancer cells

I also heard turmeric is preventing Alzheimer, maybe because detoxifying the heavy metals.
Lately -on diet- my Candida came out very badly, I started the Candida treatment and I used to live on fruits, now I cant have them-at least not all-, I'm not sure Goji is for me right now, considering the fructose in it.

[quote author=Obyvatel]Do you buy the curry paste from the grocery store? I know their are some "not-ok" ingredients in them. Or, do you make your own paste? I love curry too but stopped using the store-bought paste because of its evil-ness.
[/quote]

The ingredients are:

Shallot
Garlic
Dried Red Chili
Salt
Lemon Grass
Kaffir Lime Peel
Galangal
Cinnamon
Mace
Cumin Powder
Coriander Seeds
Turmeric

This Curry-paste from the Chinese Grocery Store in my neighborhood. You can get it everywhere: AROY-D Curry Paste.
I don't see any "evil" in it. :/

Thanks to the replies for everybody!
Wish me soon recovery from that BAD Candida! :cry:
 
Re: Curry kills gullet cancer cells

Puck said:
Wow, the logical ineptitude of this woman astounds me.

Dr Sharon McKenna, lead study author, based at the Cork Cancer Research Centre, University College Cork, said: “These exciting results suggests scientists could develop curcumin as a potential anti-cancer drug to treat oesophageal cancer.

Suggesting using tumeric in cooking as preventative medicine doesn't even occur to her, the first thing that comes to mind is "Oh use this knowledge to make a drug!" :::THWACK:::

Or using tumeric itself as a treatment, or at least doing a study...

Perhaps that's the telegraph selectively publishing her commentary, but man it just struck me that anytime scientists find a natural way to treat something they immediately want to turn it into some sort of chemical/drug. ::picks up a large sledgehammer and eyes Allopathy menacingly::

Nothing surprising here. In order for scientists to get recognition and prestige, they need to turn perfectly adequate natural things into drugs that people can swallow. Since Big Pharma is directly linked to research institutes that have anything to do with pharmacology, naturally the only way for a scientist to get recognition and prestige is to develop drugs!!! There's absolutely no prestige and money involved if a scientist just says, "Hey, people should start eating more of X to prevent cancer."
 
Re: Curry kills gullet cancer cells

[quote author=3D resident]Nothing surprising here. In order for scientists to get recognition and prestige, they need to turn perfectly adequate natural things into drugs that people can swallow. Since Big Pharma is directly linked to research institutes that have anything to do with pharmacology, naturally the only way for a scientist to get recognition and prestige is to develop drugs!!! There's absolutely no prestige and money involved if a scientist just says, "Hey, people should start eating more of X to prevent cancer."[/quote]

Yes. I had always problems with treating the symptoms and not the cause. Like Chemotherapy kills the new cells in the body , of course kills the healthy cells not only the cancerous cells:

Chemotherapy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chemotherapy, in its most general sense, is the treatment of disease by chemicals[1] especially by killing micro-organisms or cancerous cells. In popular usage, it refers to antineoplastic drugs used to treat cancer or the combination of these drugs into a cytotoxic standardized treatment regimen. In its non-oncological use, the term may also refer to antibiotics (antibacterial chemotherapy). In that sense, the first modern chemotherapeutic agent was Paul Ehrlich's arsphenamine, an arsenic compound discovered in 1909 and used to treat syphilis. This was later followed by sulfonamides discovered by Domagk and penicillin discovered by Alexander Fleming.

Most commonly, chemotherapy acts by killing cells that divide rapidly, one of the main properties of cancer cells. This means that it also harms cells that divide rapidly under normal circumstances: cells in the bone marrow, digestive tract and hair follicles; this results in the most common side effects of chemotherapy—myelosuppression (decreased production of blood cells), mucositis (inflammation of the lining of the digestive tract) and alopecia (hair loss).

Other uses of cytostatic chemotherapy agents (including the ones mentioned below) are the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Dermatomyositis, Polymyositis, Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and the suppression of transplant rejections (see immunosuppression and DMARDs). Newer anticancer drugs act directly against abnormal proteins in cancer cells; this is termed targeted therapy.

"We killed the the disease - oops the patient died!"

These chemicals are killers. No doubt. Along Radiation very dangerous. I never understood why these obviously poisonous chemicals used in medicine. Doesn't make any sense.
I wonder how many people died from the therapy?

[quote author=Wikipedia]Radiation therapy works by damaging the DNA of cells. The damage is caused by a photon, electron, proton, neutron, or ion beam directly or indirectly ionizing the atoms which make up the DNA chain. Indirect ionization happens as a result of the ionization of water, forming free radicals, notably hydroxyl radicals, which then damage the DNA. [/quote]

Makes me sick even think about it! :mad:
 
Re: Cancer is really a Fungus

More information about oral dosages of bicarbonate here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=15377.msg125756#msg125756
 
Re: Cancer is really a Fungus

Cancer is really a fungus? I have been following this topic for a couple of years now and have yet to find anything that confirms that statement. That fungus is found in proximity to cancer in no way confirms that "cancer is a fungus".

I hold a working hypothesis that cancer creates a weakened local condition conducive to yeast/fungal overgrowth, but is not necessarily a causal factor in all (or any) cancers, as Simoncini would lead us to believe.

What is known is that cancer seems to thrive in conditions of high acidity. Any method to increase the body's alkalinity would seem beneficial and practical as a cancer therapy or prophylaxis, but to presume that this will ward off all cancer might be fanciful. There seem to be a great many causal factors involved in the various types of cancers, environmental, dietary and otherwise. There is a group of underground researchers in Florida who are having success with a cancer therapy using cesium, the most alkaline substance known. It is an expensive therapy and they were, at the time I contacted them, extremely paranoid about talking to anybody who was not referred to them by an existing client. I do not know whether they are even still in operation. The FDA was frothing at the mouth to shut them down, because they were having success. I was referred to them by Daniel Haley, author of the excellent book Politics in Healing. This book dealt with all of the successful cancer therapies that had been discovered over the last 150 years... and the vicious attacks that the AMA used to shut them down and suppress the knowledge, some of which are referred to in this thread.

There seems to be a synergy between cancer and yeast/fungus, and much evidence points to this relationship, but "cancer-is-fungus" remains to be proven and to me is a classic example of which came first, the chicken or the egg. I would hesitate to put all of my "eggs" in the bicarbonate of soda basket were I diagnosed with cancer... but I would certainly give it a try, long before submitting to surgery, chemo or radiation.

I think that stating that All Cancer is Fungus can be so easily refuted that it could inhibit further research into what might be an important therapies (bicarbonates and other alkaline substances). I would venture that the cancers showing up in troops returning from the middle east, who were exposed to depleted uranium, would have developed no matter their body's Ph, or the presence or absence of systemic colonies of yeast/fungus. The same goes for exposure to toxic levels of industrial chemicals. But then I could be wrong.

Until further research proves otherwise, I remain highly skeptical that "all cancer is fungus", as put forth by Simoncini, et al.

Whenever someone claims: "All white is black" - I get suspicious. And I am turned off to everything else they say. Not because "white being black" is impossible, we know there ARE paradoxes, but BECAUSE the person uses this
three letter word: "all".

Arkadiusz Jadczyk
 
Dr. Martin Blank - Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer, a scientific perspective

For those interested, here is a link to a video by Dr. Martin Blank re: EMF and its effects on the human body. The data appears solid and he presents findinga that are definitely not the usual swayed/suspect Industry findings. The video is about 9 minutes in length.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6wLFeIrCtU&feature=player_embedded

There is also a link referenced with some solid information as well: http://www.weepinitiative.org/areyou.html

For those with limited bandwidth, here is an excerpt from their site:
---------------------------------------------------
WHAT IS ELECTROHYPERSENSITIVITY
Description

Electrohypersensitivity or EHS is a physiological condition. It is characterized by neurological and immunological symptoms that noticeably flare or intensify upon, or following expose to:

* electric and magnetic fields (EMF)
* one or more of the types of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) found in the modern environment

Having Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity means experiencing recurring stress or illness when near active EMF sources or emitters of EMR. Symptoms normally diminish with distance from these sources but typically require considerable time to vanish after exposure. The World Health Organization identifies this collection of symptoms and triggers as Electrohypersensitivity, often referred to as Electrosensitivity. It is not recognized as a medical diagnosis. However, it is accepted as a functional impairment in Sweden and the Canadian Human Rights Commission recognizes it as an environmental sensitivity and classifies it as a disability.

Likely Causes

Excessive exposures to EMF or EMR from power lines, cell phone transmission towers, cell & digital cordless phones, computers, fluorescent lights and various electrical tools & equipment.

Similarly, a synergistic effect involving heavy metal buildup in the body has been reported. Predisposing genetic factors, such as the inability to excrete heavy metals, have a role in this. Common sources of heavy metal exposure are mercury in dental amalgam, aka "silver fillings", and some vaccines.

EHS is frequently seen in people with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), resulting from overexposure or intolerance to certain chemicals.

Common Symptoms

* Concentration problems
* Memory lapses
* Aches or pressure in head, throat and chest
* Unsteady balance, dizziness
* Altered heart rate
* Ringing in the ears
* Excessive fatigue
* Numbness or pain in affected areas
* Sleep disturbances
* Eye irritation
* Red skin blotches, eczema

Four Stages of Electrohypersensitivity

1. Mild combinations of some of the common symptoms - typically headaches, concentration & memory problems - while working with electronic equipment.
2. Longer lasting symptoms after working with electronic equipment. Similar reactions in the vicinity of transmission towers and relay antennae. Symptoms often require medical care.
3. Inability to work full-time; frequent sick leaves taken to cope with symptoms.
4. Acute adverse reactions from electromagnetic pollution, both in outdoor and indoor environments. Results in unemployment and severe curtailment of freedom. Requires expensive reengineering of home environment or relocation to spartan, EMF/EMR-free rural or wilderness areas.

Prevention Tips from the EHS Community

* Keep bedroom free of battery chargers, cell & digital cordless phones and other wireless products.
* Sleep away from high field areas like the house power main and operational refrigerators. Remember fields extend some distance, even through walls.
* Limit exposure to and keep distance from, TV's, computers and monitors.
* Other common high EMF/EMR sources are: microwave ovens, induction stoves, electrical blankets, hair dryers, heating pads, tanning beds, and radiant heat systems.
* Use standard land line phones. Only use cell phones for short calls or emergencies. Use hands free model and direct the phone antenna away from your body. Do not use headphones.
* Remove digital, cordless phones from home and office; they act as mini-cell towers.
* Do not use wireless networks or gaming systems; instead use cabled/corded alternatives.
* Use a precautionary approach to new electronic devices and systems.
* Use incandescent lighting and not fluorescent.
* Turn off and unplug electrical equipment when not in use.
* Seek out low emission/low field areas both indoors and outdoors to de-stress.

Because the body of evidence is only now being taken seriously, most family practitioners are still unaware of EHS or anything that is involved in treating it.

If you have, or believe you may have EHS, we have prepared an information package to help you talk to your doctor about it. Please see: Talking to Your Doctor. Take a printed copy with you, to your next appointment with him/her.

For more indepth information about what you need to do to regain and maintain your good health see: Living with EHS; A Survival Guide
 
Re: Dr. Martin Blank - Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer, a scientific perspective

My aunt has this disorder. It developed as she got older (in her 70's now). She tries to stay far away from electric appliances and cell phones and doesn't keep a tv or other major electronics in her house. I wonder if she would still be as sensitive if her health improved? Or maybe it's a major factor in her poor health?


Edit: addition
 
Kidney Cancer

A good friend of mine's mother was just diagnosed with kidney cancer. He asked me to send him some info because he knows I keep up on diet & health and such.

I'm currently searching the forum and other sites for information, but it seemed like a good idea to post here and ask as well.

Can anyone point me in the direction of some good info? I have read a bit about apricot kernels, the coffee enemas and using clay to detox. I know she will probably have to change her diet immediately, so I'm looking for stuff that goes beyond the basic diet shift - I already have info about that I can send.

Any input at all is greatly appreciated...
 
Re: Kidney Cancer

I'm sorry to hear about this. The top 5 health books are pretty good, but if she has cancer, a good book is also The Enzyme Factor by Hiromi Shynia. He has successful experience (where the cancer will not recur) using diets in people who had surgery for gastrointestinal cancers (but it still applies for a healthy lifestyle).

Right now, the important thing is that she stays away from inflammatory and hard to digest foods which includes dairy, all sources of gluten which can be found in wheat, barley, oats, rye, spelt, kamut. Most of the dietary information is addressed in the book The Enzyme Factor, though I will add that wheat, soy, hot peppers (hot spices), corn, alcohol, coffee (organic coffee enemas are allowed though), processed foods, artificial flavors or sweeteners like monosodium glutamate and aspartame should be also excluded from her diet. She can use stevia or xylitol as a natural sweetener, as sugar is quite inflammatory and should be also avoided. She should try to eat a very simple diet, plenty of vegetables (asparagus is another favorite one in cancer diet therapies), home made vegetables broths (with seaweed, onions, garlic, celery, and various vegetables), brown rice, buckwheat and always peel her fruits as to minimize pesticide toxicity. The diet is very important and I think it was pretty well addressed in the Enzyme Factor. In the forum, you'll find more details about the diet. Favored cancer diets are mostly vegetarian, but depending on her blood type, she might be able to eat some meats, preferably if they are organic.

Flaxseed oil also is one of the main components in cancer diets, for example the Budwig diet for cancer therapy. The diet is an example of a very simple diet, although I personally don't like that it includes dairy and other inflammatory foods: http://www.cancure.org/budwig_diet.htm
2-5 Tbsp. of flaxseed oil and around 3 TBSP of freshly ground up flaxseeds (coffee grinder works fine) is the average amount recommended.

The other thing which they can look into, is Sodium Bicarbonate. There is a book called Sodium Bicarbonate – Rich Man’s Poor Man’s Cancer Treatment which might be helpful. Here is an article about it: http://www.imva.info/news/oral-dosages-of-bicarbonate.html

Here is a personal case in the following website: http://www.phkillscancer.com/

Another thing to consider is the emotional aspects of having cancer. Bernie Siegel's book "Love, Medicine, and Miracles" is very helpful and it also gives courage and inspiration for the fight against cancer.
 
Re: Kidney Cancer


While searching on herbal treatments for kidney cancer I came across this about Burdock: http://www.herbcraft.org/burdock.html

Perhaps the archetypal blood purifier, Burdock makes an excellent metabolic tonic, improving the functioning of the liver and kidneys, digestion, lymphatic and endocrine systems. Matthew Wood describes the "metabolic scenario" calling for the use of such a remedy: "the liver, the seat of metabolism, is not burning cleanly enough to remove all catabolic waste products, while the kidneys and skin are overburdened or are themselves incapable of removing these waste products. The lymphatics, which assist all these organs, also enter the picture. They may be pictured as getting slowly congested as, perhaps, a sort of haze of incomplete metabolites float around in the tissues." One can imagine that, in such a state, a person would suffer from a diminished sense of well being - nothing that they could put their finger on, or that could be diagnosed and treated by their family doctor, but that nonetheless prevents them from feeling truly healthy and vibrant. In 19th Century American herbalism, such a state might have been referred to as "scrofula" or "bad blood". Burdock addresses this type of condition by nourishing the liver, which results in an improvement in metabolism, stimulating lymphatic functioning, which brings nourishment to and cleanses cells of metabolic byproducts, and by stimulating the excretion of urine through the kidneys, which aids in the elimination of the wastes stirred up by its other actions. Additionally, I believe that alterative herbs such as Burdock help to "coordinate" the metabolism so that everything is working "in synch". The result is a generalized improvement in the body's metabolic functions, which in turn increases the efficiency by which nutrients are absorbed and energy is utilized. This increased efficiency allows us to more fully experience the vibrancy of well being.

I also kept coming across mention of Essiac Tea which contains burdock root, sheep sorrel, slippery elm and turkey rhubarb
http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/Cancer_Nutrition.html

Essiac Tea is a powerful blood purifier and contains herbs that have proven anti-tumour properties and more importantly, proven anti-fungal-viral-bacterial properties (precursor to cancer). Essiac Tea has gained worldwide attention for its uses in fighting cancer.

Essiac Tea promotes cellular repair, detoxifies the body, raises the oxygen level in tissue cells, strengthens the immune system, nourishes and stimulates the brain and nervous system and eases nausea. It eliminates heavy metal and toxins in the tissue, destroys parasites in the digestive tract, and prevents a build up of fatty deposits in the heart, kidney, and liver.

Many who have used Essiac believe it can reduce the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Users reported that with the reduction in chemotherapy / radiation side effects, they were much better able to handle the full course of their treatments without interruption and delays in treatment.

To read more on essiac: http://www.the7thfire.com/health_and_nutrition/original_essiac.htm

Maybe this will help.
 
Re: Kidney Cancer

Hi Jonny Radar, I recently have been doing a little research into German New Medicine. My chiropractor has been using some of the principles in his practice along with the emotional work, EON therapy, and he has been getting some great results.

The founder of German New Medicine is Dr.Ryke Geerd Hamer and apparently he had a very high success rate with treating patients with cancer.

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/hamer.htm said:
Dr Hamer had an exceptionally high success rate with his cancer therapy, by far the highest I have seen of any therapy. During one of several trials of the persecuted Dr Hamer the public prosecutor (Wiener-Neustadt in Austria) had to admit that after 4 to 5 years 6,000 out of 6,500 patients with mostly advanced cancer were still alive. That is over 90%, almost a reversal of the results to be expected after conventional treatment of advanced conditions.

In German New Medicine it is said that most conditions are caused by an unexpected shock and once this shock is processed and healed then the condition is also healed. One of the main things he says is don't panic when diagnosed with cancer. He claims a diagnosis death fright can also cause cancer.

For kidney cancer, I think it is said that it is caused by an abandonment shock. I think it is different for each part of the kidney but here is a paragraph about the kidney collecting tubules, p. 21:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/17735808/German-New-Medicine---The-Five-Biological-Laws-Win-the-fight-with-cancer-%28censored9 said:
The kidney collecting tubules, which are the oldest tissues of the kidneys, correspond to biological conflicts that relate back to the time when our distant ancestors where still living in the ocean and being thrown on shore
would pose a life-threatening situation. We humans can suffer such a "fish-out-of-water"-DHS as an "abandonment conflict" (feeling isolated, excluded, left behind), as a "refugee conflict" (having to flee our home), as an "existence conflict" (our life or livelihood is at stake), or as a "hospitalization conflict"

Here is a good website about German New Medicine: http://learninggnm.com/

And here is a good video presentation about German New Medicine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zYWtzq4XBk
 
Re: Kidney Cancer

Thank you guys so much. And Thanks Psyche for distilling that synopsis of the diet in one paragraph, very clear! I have read about the Budwig diet and using Sodium Bicarbonate, but the other stuff is new information (to me anyway), so thanks! :)
 
Re: Sunlight and cancer - turnabout?

Australia has one of the highest incidences of skin cancer diagnosed as due to sunlight.

I spoke to a leading skin specialist about susceptibility to skin cancer. He mentioned that the von Luschan scale was a good indicator of risk.

People with skin in the 1-10 band are at risk. Above that band there is a low risk.

Unfortunately, the media has not taken skin type into important consideration when warning people of the dangers of sunlight. They tend to
ignore the fact which I think is due to the idea that it could have racist overtones. So there is a blanket message that the sun is harmful for ALL people.
It isn't factual.

In Australia we have, due to 18th-19thC colonisation, a large Irish population. Many of these have skin type I. They are at high risk in Australia.
In Ireland and other places of comparable latitude, the sun does not have the intensity to cause the problems we see here in the Antipodes.
 
Re: Sunlight and cancer - turnabout?

This brings up another subject of the pushing of sunscreens as to block the perhaps benefit's of Vitamin D. With the fear of the effects of skin cancer. But as other post have brought to light that the lighter the skinned people are, and the position to where one lives and genetics's are also contributing factors in the production to skin cancer.

There always the hysteria by skin care product's that to much sun will age skin and cause melanoma. This may be true for some but the pharmaceutical companies seem to blanket the idea that everyone is susceptible to the issue. As a means to promote the products of sunscreens.
But not all sunscreens are safe and pose risk that can be worse for the body then the cause and promote health issues because as to the chemicals in them. Article taken from: :cool:

http://wwww.skinbiology.com/toxicsunscreenshtml

Free Radical Generators and Gender-Bending Estrogenic Chemicals
Sunscreen Chemicals may Generate Free Radicals Within Your Body
Do Chemical Sunscreens Increase Cancer?
Psoriasis Treatment Increases Skin Cancer 83-fold
Toxic Estrogenic Chemical Sunscreens
Orcas of Pacific Northwest Dying from Estrogenic Toxins
The Failure of Academic Dermatologists to Protect the Public
Sunscreen Options

Chemical Sunscreens Include:

Benzophenones (dixoybenzone, oxybenzone)

PABA and PABA esters (ethyl dihydroxy propyl PAB, glyceryl PABA, p-aminobenzoic acid, padimate-O or octyl dimethyl PABA)

Cinnamates (cinoxate, ethylhexyl p-methoxycinnamate, octocrylene, octyl methoxycinnamate)

Salicylates (ethylhexyl salicylate, homosalate, octyl salicylate)


Digalloyl trioleate

Menthyl anthranilate

Avobenzone [butyl-methyoxydibenzoylmethane; Parsol 1789] - This is the only chemical sunscreen currently allowed by the European Community. However, its safety is still questionable since it easily penetrates the skin and is a strong free radical generator.


Sunscreen Chemicals May Generate Free Radicals Within Your Body
Most chemical sunscreens contain, as UVA and UVB blockers, from 2 to 5% of compounds such avobenzone, benzophenone, ethylhexyl p-methoxycinnimate, 2-ethylhexyl salicylate, homosalate, octyl methoxycinnamate, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) as the active ingredients.Benzophenone (and similar compounds) is one of the most powerful free radical generators known. It is used in industrial processes as a free radical generator to initiate chemical reactions. Benzophenone is activated by ultraviolet light energy that breaks benzophenone's double bond to produce two free radical sites. The free radicals then react with other molecules and produce damage to the fats, proteins, and DNA of the cells - the types of damage that produce skin aging and the development of cancer.

Adding to the problem is that large amounts of applied sunscreens can enter the bloodstream though your skin. In the 1970s, Prof. Howard Maibach warned that up to 35 percent of sunscreen applied to the skin can pass through the skin and enter the bloodstream but this had little effect on sunscreen promotion or safety testing. (Maibach, H. "NDELA-Percutaneous Penetration." FDA Contract 223-75-2340, May 19, 1978) The longer sunscreen chemicals are left on the skin, the greater the absorption into the body. (Bronaugh, R.L., et al. "The effect of cosmetic vehicles on the penetration of N-nitrosodiethanolamine through excised human skin, J Invest Dermatol; 1981; 76(2): 94-96.) This may be a factor in the large increases in cancer (breast, uterine, colon, prostate) observed in regions, such as Northern Australia, where the use of sunscreen chemicals has been heavily promoted by medical groups and the local governments.

Many sunscreens also contain triethanolamine, a compound that can cause the formation of cancer causing nitrosamines in products by combining with nitrite used as preservative and often not disclosed on sunscreen labels.

In March 1998, Dr. John Knowland of the University of Oxford reported studies showing that certain sunscreens containing PABA and its derivatives can damage DNA, at least in the test tube experiments. When a chemical sunscreen, Padimate-O, was added to DNA and the mixture exposed to the ultraviolet rays of sunlight, it was found that the sunscreen broke down in sunlight, releasing highly active agents that could damage DNA. It did not block out the UV, but instead absorbed energy. “It became excited and set off a chemical reaction that resulted in the generation of the dangerous free radicals and broken DNA strands that can lead to cancer,” he said and further commented that while it's too early to make blanket recommendations, “I would not use a product containing PABA, Padimate-O or other PABA derivatives.” Dr. Martin Rieger reported that PABA may play a role in DNA-dimer formation, a type of DNA damage that can induce carcinogenic changes.

Avobenzone (Parsol 1789) May Not Be Safe Either

In 1997, Europe, Canada, and Australia changed sunscreens to use three specific active sunscreen ingredients - avobenzone (also known as Parsol 1789), titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide - as the basis of sunscreens. In the USA, the cosmetic companies have held off this policy as they try to sell off their stockpiles of cosmetics containing toxic sunscreens banned in other countries.

However, avobenzone is a powerful free radical generator and also should have been banned. Avobenzone is easily absorbed through the epidermis and is still a chemical that absorbs ultraviolet radiation energy. Since it cannot destroy this energy, it has to convert the light energy into chemical energy, which is normally released as free radicals. While it blocks long-wave UVA, it does not effectively UVB or short-wave UVA radiation, and is usually combined with other sunscreen chemicals to produce a "broad-spectrum" product. In sunlight, avobenzone degrades and becomes ineffective within about 1 hour.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do Chemical Sunscreens Increase Cancer?
Worldwide, the greatest rise in melanoma has been experienced in countries where chemical sunscreens have been heavily promoted The rise in melanoma has been exceptionally high in Queensland, Australia where the medical establishment has vigorously promoted the use of sunscreens. Queensland now has more incidences of melanoma per capita than any other place on Earth. (Garland, Cedric F., et al. Could sunscreens increase melanoma risk? American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 82, No. 4, April 1992, pp. 614-15).

Dr. Gordon Ainsleigh in California believes that the use of sunscreens causes more cancer deaths than it prevents. He estimates that the 17% increase in breast cancer observed between 1981 and 1992 may be the result of the pervasive use of sunscreens over the past decade (Ainsleigh, H. Gordon. Beneficial effects of sun exposure on cancer mortality. Preventive Medicine, Vol. 22, February 1993, pp. 132-40). Recent studies have also shown a higher rate of melanoma among men who regularly use sunscreens and a higher rate of basal cell carcinoma among women using sunscreens (Garland, Cedric F. et al. Effect of sunscreens on UV radiation-induced enhancement of melanoma growth in mice. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 86, No. 10, May 18, 1994, pp. 798-801 :Larsen, H.R. "Sunscreens: do they cause skin cancer." International Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 1994; 12(12): 17-19; Farmer K.C. & Naylor, M.F. "Sun exposure, sunscreens, and skin cancer prevention: a year-round concern." Ann Pharmacother, 1996; 30(6):662-73)

Drs. Cedric and Frank Garland of the University of California have pointed out that while sunscreens do protect against sunburn, there is no scientific proof that they protect against melanoma or basal cell carcinoma in humans (Garland, C.F., et al. "Could sunscreens increase melanoma risk?" American Journal of Public Health, 1992; 82(4): 614-615.) The Garlands believe that the increased use of chemical sunscreens is the primary cause of the skin cancer epidemic. There is, however, some evidence that regular use of sunscreens helps prevent the formation of actinic keratoses, the precursors of squamous cell carcinoma (Dover, Jeffrey S. & Arndt, Kenneth A. Dermatology. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 271, No. 21, June 1, 1994, pp. 1662-63).

In February 1998, epidemiologist Marianne Berwick of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented a careful analysis of data on sunscreen use and skin cancer at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Sunscreens may not protect against skin cancer, including melanoma, she concluded. "We don't really know whether sunscreens prevent skin cancer," said Berwick. She looked first at four studies of squamous cell cancer, a cancer that appears on the head, neck, and arms but is usually not lethal. Two of the studies concluded that sunscreen protected against a skin condition thought to precede squamous cell cancer while two other studies reported that sunscreen did not shield people from this type of skin cancer. She then analyzed two studies of basal cell carcinoma, another nonlethal skin cancer that is the most common form of skin cancer and appears most frequently on the head, neck, and arms. Those two studies found that people who used sunscreen were more likely to develop basal cell cancer than people who did not. She then analyzed 10 studies of melanoma, the skin cancer is the most deadly. Melanoma often starts in or near moles on the skin. In five of the melanoma studies, people who used sunscreen were more likely than nonusers to develop melanoma. In three of the studies, there was no association between sunscreen use and melanoma. In the final two studies, people who used sunscreen seemed to be protected. (Source: Science News, Vol. 153, No. 23, June 6, 1998, p. 360).

"After examining the available epidemiological data and conducting our own large case-control population-based study, we have found no relationship between sunscreen use at any age and the development of melanoma skin cancer," said Dr. Berwick. Although sunscreens do prevent sunburn, Dr. Berwick concluded that sunburn itself is not the direct cause of cancer. Dr. Berwick objected to the universal blanket advice about using sunscreens during all time spent outdoors.

Dr. Berwick previously conducted a 1996 study that found no link between sunscreen use at any age and the development of melanoma. The same study also found no relationship between a history of sunburn and the development of melanoma. Berwick continued saying that the relationship between sunscreen use and the development of skin cancer is complicated by evidence that people who are sensitive to the sun engage in fewer activities in the bright sun and wear sunscreen when they do. But if these people develop melanoma, it may be because they are genetically susceptible and likely to develop skin cancer regardless of the amount of sunlight exposure or protection from sunscreen.

"Based on the evidence, we conclude that sunburn itself probably does not cause melanoma, but that it is an important sign of excessive sun exposure particularly among those who are genetically susceptible because of their skin-type," said Dr. Berwick. The melanoma risk for people with numerous moles was six times higher than that of someone with only a few moles. Persons most at risk for melanoma are those with red or blond hair and lighter colored eyes. Such light-skinned people have almost six times more melanoma than persons with darker skin. "The evidence indicates that chronic sun exposure may be protective for the development of melanoma because the skin has adapted to the sun, having become thicker as it has tanned. On the other hand, intermittent sun exposure appears to increase risk, making it much less protective," added Dr. Berwick. "People need to focus on their individual risk characteristics, such as their pigmentary phenotype, their family history, and the type and number of moles they have. I recommend that people avoid the sun when they are clearly at high risk and that they should enjoy a reasonable amount of outdoor activities with less anxiety when they are clearly at reduced risk," advised Dr. Berwick.

After Dr. Berwick's presentation of this data, the American Academy of Dermatology (ADA) issued a press release attacking her work. The then president of the ADA insulted her as a "number crunching scientist". But then, all scientists spend a lot of time crunching numbers.

Studies have found that the incidence of skin cancers has increased even as sunscreens have become popular among fair-skinned people. The establishment answer to this increase in the cancer rate is that wearing sunscreen makes people stay in the sun too long. A study by Drs. Mike Brown (Kate Law of the Cancer Research Campaign) Philippe Autier (European Institute of Oncology in Milan) reported that children using sunscreen returned from holiday with more skin moles - a possible sign of increased cancer risk. Some say that people who wore higher factor sunscreens tend to stay out in sunlight much longer, because they fell protected. However, others have pointed out that if sunscreen chemicals were protective, the factors of longer sun exposure would be somewhat countered by the sunscreen's supposed protective actions.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skin Cancer Increase Not Due to Ozone Depletion
But what about ozone depletion and skin cancer? Could this be the cause of the increased skin cancer rates? Professor Johan Moan of the Norwegian Cancer Institute found that the yearly incidence of melanoma in Norway had increased by 350% for men and by 440% for women during the period 1957 to 1984. He also determined that there had been no change in the ozone layer over this period of time. He concludes his report in the British Journal of Cancer by stating "Ozone depletion is not the cause of the increase in skin cancers" (Moan, J. & Dahlback, A. The relationship between skin cancers, solar radiation and ozone depletion. British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 1992, pp. 916-21).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psoriasis Treatment Increases Skin Cancer 83-fold
Researchers at the Harvard Medical School discovered that psoralen, another ultraviolet light-activated, free radical generator that is chemically similar to sunscreens, is an extremely efficient carcinogen. They found that the rate of squamous cell carcinoma among patients with psoriasis, who had been repeatedly treated with UVA light after a topical application of psoralen, was 83 times higher than among the general population (Stern, Robert S. and Laid, Nan. The carcinogenic risk of treatments for severe psoriasis. Cancer, Vol. 73, No. 11, June 1, 1994, pp. 2759-64).
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom