“The results were higher intake of folate was related to reduced risk of breast cancer and this only applied to premenopausal women.”

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com

Link: http://www.nhiondemand.com/hsjarticle.aspx?id=1126&utm_source=NHI+OnDemand+Newsletter+List&utm_campaign=f18301c4e3-HSJ_Oct03_2011&utm_medium=email

Excerpt:

Date: 10/3/2011
Folate Associated with Reduced Risk of Breast Cancer
Source: American Journal of Epidemiology

Breast cancer is a cancer that forms in tissues of the breast, usually the ducts (tubes that carry milk to the nipple) and lobules (glands that make milk). It occurs in both men and women, although male breast cancer is rare. Risk factors for breast cancer include gender, age, family history, defective genes, early onset of menstruation, late menopause and late childbearing. Breast cancer is about ninety percent due to genetic abnormalities that happen as a result of the aging process and the “wear and tear” of life in general.

Dr. Gordon’s Comments: It bears repeating that we are all toxic but now this bright naturopathic doctor includes sources that most patients have never considered as contributing to their impaired health and even to breast cancer. Once patients see there is no escape they may be more compliant with the lifetime continual detoxification program I recommend including the use at least once a day of my “Power Drink” containing my Beyond Fiber, my Organic Green, BioEn’R-G’y C, and MACA. 

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com

Link: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/phoenix-doctor-links-household-products-to-women%27s-health-conditions

Excerpt:

A Naturopathic physician in Phoenix says household products may be linked to a number of women’s health conditions. 

Dr. Marianne Marchese says household products may be linked to a number of women’s health conditions, and she put those findings in her new book 8 Weeks to Women’s Wellness. 

According to her book , the average person can store hundreds of chemicals in the body. 

One of her patients Sarara Corva tells us she believes common household items may have contributed to her breast cancer. 

Dr. Gordon’s Comments:

Everything  you think you know about vitamin C is probably more than 50% wrong  and, if you relied on this official appearing document re vitamin C, you would not use it.  The attached document is from NIH so it gives you all the negative but you must know all that too.

But I am providing you with the contrary opinion. You will be amazed at how the right hand of the government does not know what the left hand is doing! FDA has approved vitamin C for treating one type of cancer!  That opens the door to great speculation and further research about non-toxic cancer therapies and I am excited to incorporate into this program the power of PEMF, which makes each cell ALKALINE and restores transmembrane potential. So I believe I have two or more non-toxic approaches that need to be looked at concurrently and incorporated with my FIGHT program for long term success.

Using IV VIT C with  my FIGHT program and PEMF ( Pulsed Electromagnetic  Field Therapy )  you will see and feel results  with PEMF on top of my FIGHT program, I am clearly  getting younger!

There are other ways to enhance the effectiveness of high dose IV Vitamin C in treating cancer and using it alone I do not find that IV VIT C is very often curative but it almost always helps and buys time for other therapies to be instituted.

Remember   we all need to improve outcomes, as our patients pay cash. We are not endowed by Government funds like our brethren using their chemo/radiation.  They are generally covered and   just bill the system and are ok no matter what the outcome.  We are NOT OK unless we turn out superior results and have data that shows we can beat mainstream outcomes hands down.

This NIH authoritative appearing well– referenced document would make anyone think oral low dose (2000 mg and under) Vitamin C is dangerous and causes cancer and heart disease. It appears to be fully referenced up to date through November 2009 yet it is missing an important point; somehow IV vitamin C WITH K-3 is now FDA approved for treating bladder cancer!! After all if anyone knew that vitamin C could be FDA approved for one cancer then some doctors would have some interest in trying it in other cancers just like the oncologists do everyday.

How can I and many of our colleagues be successfully using oral and IV vitamin C to keep Cancer patients alive far longer than their oncologists predict and still be considered by mainstream oncologists to be so wrong?  They tell their patients to never use vitamin C!

This report even has recommendations about not exceeding what they have established now, as their safe upper limit of oral vitamin C at 2000 mg MAX. Yet it is hard for them to ignore entirely what we are doing with cancer so they throw in some words to try to sound plausible with their otherwise very negative review of vitamin C. This is BURIED in the attached report but of course they have their numbers about what the maximum serum levels achievable with oral vitamin c vs.  the high serum levels achievable with IV Vitamin C. Those that are interested to get to the bottom of this mystery will find that vitamin c deserves your serious attention, IV and ORAL because there is always the rest of the story.

This is just one paragraph from many articles you may want to review once you read my comments: ’The bottom line is: Apatone selectively targets and kills tumor cells using non-toxic biochemistry that protects surrounding healthy tissue.” Licensed in 2004 to IC-MedTech, Inc., a California-based biotechnology company, the first clinical trial began in 2005 to evaluate the drug in prostate cancer patients. The clinical studies, which were conducted at Summa Health System in Akron, Ohio and with Dr. Ananias Diokno at William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Mich., examined the safety and effectiveness in 17 end-stage prostate cancer patients for 12 weeks. These patients took Apatone orally each day. The trials were supported by the Beaumont Foundation, Summa Health System and IC-MedTech.

Yet this is the best that the NIH report can offer the informed patients and physicians trying to help cancer patients. They admit there could be some discrepancy in the research but clearly tell no one that vitamin C is working when mixed with the correct form of vitamin K-3 (Apatone), which increases its oxidative capacity.

Remember this  work using vitamin C  for cancer  goes back several years now  and it consists IV vitamin C with the correct form of vitamin K, which unfortunately it appears that  most physicians  have never found  the correct form since there appears to be as many as 6 molecules being sold as vitamin K-3 and some are toxic. Yet in the lecture I will deliver for The Oxidative Training Workshop during IMOSAIC on April 7th at the Minneapolis conference, sponsored by ACAM, AHIMA, AAEM and ICIM, I will educate you about how easily you can kill the therapeutic effect when you are trying to master oxidative therapies with something as simple as giving NAC or GLUTATHIONE concurrently.

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com

Link: http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminC-HealthProfessional/

Excerpt:

Introduction
Vitamin C, also known as L-ascorbic acid, is a water-soluble vitamin that is naturally present in some foods, added to others, and available as a dietary supplement. Humans, unlike most animals, are unable to synthesize vitamin C endogenously, so it is an essential dietary component [1].

Vitamin C is required for the biosynthesis of collagen, L-carnitine, and certain neurotransmitters; vitamin C is also involved in protein metabolism [1,2]. Collagen is an essential component of connective tissue, which plays a vital role in wound healing. Vitamin C is also an important physiological antioxidant [3] and has been shown to regenerate other antioxidants within the body, including alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E) [4]. Ongoing research is examining whether vitamin C, by limiting the damaging effects of free radicals through its antioxidant activity, might help prevent or delay the development of certain cancers, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases in which oxidative stress plays a causal role. In addition to its biosynthetic and antioxidant functions, vitamin C plays an important role in immune function [4] and improves the absorption of nonheme iron [5], the form of iron present in plant-based foods. Insufficient vitamin C intake causes scurvy, which is characterized by fatigue or lassitude, widespread connective tissue weakness, and capillary fragility [1,2,4,6-9].

 HRT Doubles Recurrence Risk in Breast Cancer Survivors

LONDON, March 25 — Breast cancer survivors treated with hormone replacement therapy had a more than two-fold increased risk of recurrence or a contralateral malignancy, according to long-term follow-up data from a randomized clinical trial.

•Note that this is one of the few randomized, controlled studies that have examined the risk of breast cancer recurrence associated with HRT.
Those randomized to HRT had five-year breast cancer rates of 22.2% compared with 8% in women who received best patient care for menopausal symptoms without hormone therapy, Lars Holmberg, M.D., Ph.D., of King’s College London, and colleagues, reported in the April 2 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The results of the HABITS [Hormonal Replacement after Breast Cancer — Is It Safe?] trial indicate a substantial risk a new breast cancer event among breast cancer survivors using hormone therapy,” the authors concluded.

“Our results further suggest that hormone therapy not only induces and promotes breast cancer but may also stimulate the growth of tumor microdeposits in breast cancer survivors,” they added.

Despite the statistically significant impact of hormone therapy on breast cancer risk, the authors said more data from randomized studies are needed to define the risk and to clear up inconsistencies in prior studies.

However, Kathleen Pritchard, M.D., a breast cancer specialist at Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center in Toronto, said in an accompanying editorial that the study “suggests quite definitively that there is a statistically significantly increased risk of recurrence in women given HRT following diagnosis of breast cancer.”

Persistent questions about the potential risks and benefits of HRT in breast cancer survivors provided impetus for several observational studies and analyses of case series. More recently, data from the Women’s Health Initiative and the Million Women Study provided additional compelling evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer among HRT users, the King’s College authors said.

Excerpt:

A landmark paper on homeopathy and cancer has appeared in the February 2010 issue of the International Journal of Oncology. Scientists at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDA), led by Moshe Frenkel, MD, have confirmed the ability of four homeopathic remedies to induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in breast cancer cell lines in the laboratory. The scientists in question were from the Integrative Medicine Program, the Department of Molecular Pathology, and the Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology of MDA. Their two Indian collaborators were from the Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, Kolkata, India, where these same remedies are employed clinically with apparent success. The four ultra-dilute remedies in question were Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja.

Deciding on a Safe Level
Several animal studies show adverse effects, such as abnormal reproductive development, at exposures of 2.4 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day. Our food-safety scientists recommend limiting daily exposure to one-thousandth of that level, or 0.0024 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, following established practices to ensure an adequate margin of safety.
An FDA special scientific advisory panel reported in late 2008 that the agency’s basis for setting safety standards to protect consumers was inadequate and should be re-evaluated. A congressional subcommittee determined in 2009 that the agency relied too heavily on studies sponsored by the American Plastics Council. BPA, a building block of plastics, is a component of epoxy resin used in cans and packaging. “The FDA’s reliance on industry studies in determining BPA’s safety must be re-evaluated in light of clear signs industry is willing to mislead the American people on this public-health issue,” said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. Bills are pending in Congress that would ban the use of BPA in all food and beverage containers.
More From Consumer Reports Health
Industry has been waging a fight against new regulations. The American Chemistry Council says on its Web site: “The weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the safety of BPA and provides strong reassurance that there is no basis for human health concerns from exposure to BPA.” The chemical was first marketed in the 1940s as a plastic component and by the 1960s was used in almost all can linings to extend shelf life. Now it is one of the highest-volume chemicals in the world; at least 7 billion pounds are produced annually for use in countless products, including dental sealants, PVC water pipes, medical equipment, consumer electronics, and even cash-register receipts.
New evidence of the risks of BPA at low levels increases the concern about those multiple sources of exposure. “Our regulatory standards now are based on the outdated assumption that when you test a chemical’s safety at high doses, the results also will reveal any risks occurring at low doses, but as hundreds of studies have now demonstrated, it doesn’t work that way with estrogen-mimicking chemicals like BPA, which can have completely different and potentially more harmful effects at low doses,” says Frederick vom Saal, a professor of developmental biology at the University of Missouri at Columbia and a leading researcher on BPA.
What We Found
We tested for BPA in soup, vegetables, tuna, and other canned products as well as noncanned versions from leading manufacturers such as Campbell’s, Chef Boyardee, Del Monte, Nestlé, and Progresso, among others. Using outside laboratories, we tested three samples of each product, all bought in the New York metropolitan area or online. In all but one case, the three samples were of different lot numbers.
Our tests convey a snapshot of the marketplace and do not provide a general conclusion about the levels of BPA in any particular brand or type of product we tested. Levels in the same products purchased at different times or places or in other brands of similar foods might differ from our test results. Nevertheless, our findings are notable because they indicate the extent of potential exposure: Consumers eating just one serving of the canned vegetable soup we tested would get about double what the FDA now considers typical average dietary daily exposure.
We found that the average amounts of BPA in tested products varied widely; most items showed levels from trace amounts to about 32 parts per billion. Products in that range included canned corn, chili, tomato sauce, and corned beef.
The highest levels of BPA in our tests were found in the canned green beans and canned soup. In Progresso Vegetable Soup, the levels of BPA ranged from 67 to 134 ppb. In Campbell’s Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup, the levels of BPA ranged from 54.5 to 102 ppb. Canned Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake had BPA levels ranging from 35.9 ppb to 191 ppb, the highest amount for a single sample in our test. Since we didn’t test other canned green beans or soups, we don’t know if this is typical of those products.
A 165-pound adult eating one serving of canned green beans from our sample, which averaged 123.5 ppb, could ingest about 0.2 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day, about 80 times higher than our experts’ recommended daily upper limit. And children eating multiple servings per day of canned foods with BPA levels comparable to the ones we found in some tested products could get a dose of BPA approaching levels that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies.
Given the significance of BPA exposure for infants and young children, we tested samples of Similac Advance Infant Formula and Nestlé Juicy Juice All Natural 100% Apple Juice. Samples of the Similac liquid concentrate in a can averaged 9 ppb of BPA, but there was no measurable level in the powdered version. Samples of the Nestlé Juicy Juice in a can averaged 9.7 ppb BPA, but there were no measurable levels in the samples of the same product packaged in juice boxes.
Although BPA levels in that canned juice were not among the highest in the foods we tested, canned juice can account for a substantial amount of dietary BPA exposure in children who drink a lot of it. Drinking three servings per day of canned apple juice with BPA levels comparable to the levels found in our samples could result in a dose of BPA that is more than our experts’ daily upper limit.
Alternative Packaging
Our tests of cans found that the majority were lined with an epoxy-based material, which is normally made with BPA. But a handful had a nonepoxy-based liner. Those findings along with the BPA results suggest that bypassing metal cans in favor of other packaging such as plastic containers or bags might lower but not eliminate exposure to BPA in those foods, although this wasn’t true for all of the products we tested.
For instance, Campbell’s Chicken Noodle Soup in plastic packaging contained detectable amounts of BPA but at levels that were significantly lower than the same brand of soup in the can. The StarKist Chunk Light canned tuna we tested averaged 3 ppb of BPA, but BPA levels in the same brand in a plastic pouch weren’t measurable. We tested Bird’s Eye Steam Fresh Cut Green Beans, frozen in a plastic bag, analyzing three samples as packaged and another three samples after microwaving in the bag. We found all contained very low levels of BPA, about 1 ppb or less.
The samples of Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli in Tomato and Meat Sauce packaged in a plastic container with a metal peel-off lid had BPA levels 1.5 times higher than the same brand of food in metal cans. Our test of the metal peel-back lid revealed that the inner coating is epoxy-based.
We tested two products that their manufacturers claimed were packaged in BPA-free cans and found the chemical in both of the foods. Although tests of the inside of the cans found that the liners were not epoxy-based, Vital Choice’s tuna in “BPA-free” cans was found to contain an average of 20 ppb of BPA and Eden Baked Beans averaged 1 ppb.
What Should Be Done
Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, believes manufacturers and government agencies should act to eliminate the use of BPA in all materials that come into contact with food.
In Japan, most major manufacturers voluntarily changed their can linings in 1997 to cut or eliminate the use of BPA because of concerns about health effects. A 2003 Japanese study found that the levels of the chemical in subjects’ urine dropped by 50 percent after the change in cans was made.
Pete Myers, chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit group based in Charlottesville, Va., says that while can linings aren’t the only source of BPA exposure, the experiences in Japan can be instructive.
In the meantime, experts say that consumers who are concerned might be able to reduce, though not necessarily eliminate, their dietary exposure to BPA by taking the following steps:
* Choose fresh food whenever possible.
* Consider alternatives to canned food, beverages, juices, and infant formula.
* Use glass containers when heating food in microwave ovens.
Subscribe to ConsumerReportsHealth.org for the latest tips on staying healthy and preventing illness. https://ec.consumerreports.org/ec/mg/order.htm?EXTKEY=AAOLHEALTH
Copyright © 2005-2009 Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. No reproduction, in whole or in part, without written permission.
2009-11-17 10:57:10

Intracellular bacterial infections have historically been proposed as a cause of cancer [1,2].  Although bacterial involvement in malignant transformation and its reversal with antibiotic treatment have been demonstrated in animal models [3], there are few examples of direct involvement of bacteria in clinical transformation of malignant cells [4].  It seems more likely that the release of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) and other genotoxic molecules by intracellular bacteria play a role in progression to malignancy rather than the inception of cancer or transformation [5].  Reports in the literature indicate that over one-half of ovarian cancer patients have mycoplasmal infections in their tumors [6], and the incidence of infection in ovarian cancer was related to stage and survival [7].  Some results have been questioned on the basis of contamination in tissue culture [8], but most studies did not use culture procedures.  Therefore, we examined breast cancer patients to determine if there was a relationship between systemic mycoplasmal infections and progression of their breast cancers.  Examination of breast cancer patients showed mycoplasmal infections inside blood leukocytes (~50%+) not blood plasma or serum.  The most common species found were M. fermentans, M. pneumoniae and M. genitalium.  In contrast, in healthy adults the incidence of these species was low [9].  We found an association between stage, progression (measured by relapse after surgery) and presence of mycoplasmal infection(s) (P<0.001) in breast cancer.  The results suggest that intracellular mycoplasmal infections known to be associated with malignant progression are significantly related to progression and relapse due to metastasis of breast cancer.

Prof. Garth L. Nicolson

American Academy of Environmental Medicine 2005 Annual Meeting

The Institute for Molecular Medicine, Email: gnicolson@immed.org

 References
 1. Nuzum JW. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1925; 11:343-353.

2. Plata et al. J Infect Dis 1973; 128:588-598

3. Tsai et al. PNAS 1995; 92:10197-10201.

4. Feng et al. Mol Cell Biol 1999; 19:7995-8002.

5. Nicolson GL. JANA 2003; 6(3):22-28.

6. Chan et al. Gynecol Oncol. 1996; 63(2):258-260.

7. Camolai N. Can J Microbiol 2001; 47(8):691-697.

8. Quirk et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 83(3):560-562.

9. Nicolson  et al.  J Chronic Fatigue Syndr 2000; 6(3):23-39.