You may or may not agree with everything discussed, but the gist of the message is roughly the same — mammograms come with a great danger in terms of raising breast cancer risk, and this is something which most doctors and the media do not usually talk about, at least not often and not loud enough. The key point here, is there net benefit or loss? — a procedure may save some lives, but overall, does it do more good or cause more harm?

For a much better alternative to mammography, consider thermograms.

Cancer industry desperately needs mammogram screenings to recruit patients and generate repeat business

by Mike Adams

Any time you threaten to take away repeat customer from the businesses that make up the cancer industry, you’re in for a political fight. After the United States Preventive Services Task Force released new recommendations advising against mammograms for women under 50 (and recommending only bi-annual screenings after that), the cancer industry went berserk.

Mammograms, you see, are the bread and butter of the for-profit cancer industry. They serve two very important purposes:

Purpose #1: RECRUIT patients. Mammograms are a clever tool for recruiting patients into a highly-profitable regimen of chemotherapy drugs, radiation and surgery that, nine times out of ten, isn’t even medically justified. How’s that? Because the detection technology behind mammograms is now so advanced it can detect tiny tumors present in virtually everyone, whether they’re dangerous or not. This has lead to a huge increase in “false positives” and dangerous over-treatment of cancers that would be better off just left alone (or treated with anti-cancer nutrients and superfoods).

But mammograms are a great way to scare women into unnecessary cancer treatments. So they’re pure genius when it comes to recruiting new patients using the fear tactics the cancer industry has come to rely on.

Purpose #2: CAUSE more cancer. The second purpose of mammograms is to cause cancer by exposing women’s breasts (and heart tissues) to ionizing radiation. When subjected to repeated exposure of such radiation, the human body will undergo DNA mutations and inevitably be afflicted with cancer. This is how the cancer industry can make predictions like “one out of every three women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime…” — they know this to be true because they are the ones causing the cancer in the first place!

If you took your car to a mechanic to have the oil changed, and that mechanic poured corrosive bits of metal into your car’s engine that caused long-term engine damage, would you continue to take your car to that same mechanic year after year? And if so, would you PAY that mechanic to repair the damage he actually caused?

That’s what women are essentially doing when they receive mammograms. Each year, as they dutifully get their mammograms, they are exposing themselves to the very kind of radiation that causes cancer, practically guaranteeing they will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. (At which point the oncologist will say something like, “See? Good thing we do these mammograms every year, or we wouldn’t have caught this tumor!”)

The false cancer slogan that “early detection saves lives” would be more accurately modified to read: Repeated exposure to radiation causes cancer.

More destructive than X-raying your feet!

Did you know that in the 1940’s, shoe stores used to have their own X-ray machines? Customers would try on a shoe, stick their foot in the X-ray fluoroscope machine, and see on the viewing screen how their bones fit in the shoes.

It seemed like a really neat idea, and it sold a lot of shoes. But at the same time, it also dosed customers’ feet with an astonishing 20 - 100+ rems per minute of radiation. As you might suspect, a lot of these shoe store customers developed very serious health problems with their feet, including DNA mutations and cancerous lesions.

Even long after the radiation risk of such shoe-fitting machines was known to be extremely harmful, doctors stayed silent about it. The machines were never banned, either… they were quietly phased out in the 1950’s after raising the cancer risks of literally millions of people.

Mammograms are the modern-day version of the X-ray shoe-fitting machine. They’re represent a harmful, cancer-causing technology that people mistakenly think offers some benefit for them. But every time you use the machine, your risk of cancer goes up another notch. Meanwhile, just like in the 1940’s, most conventional doctors stay silent about the cancer risks resulting from such radiation! (But more and more informed doctors are finally speaking out against mammography…)

If you were an evil genius who wanted to design and manufacture a cancer-causing machine, it would be difficult to beat the present-day mammography machine. It exposes human tissue to high-powered radiation that, if repeated often enough, practically guarantees cancer will eventually develop. In one sense, it’s sort of a “slow suicide machine” that takes years (or decades) to complete its work on your body. But before you die, you get to spend your life savings on “treatments” that will leave you bankrupt just before they leave you dead.

That’s the whole point of the cancer industry, after all: To maximize profits from cancer. Mammography is a key piece of the puzzle in accomplishing precisely that.

Repeat business

The truth is, mammography offers no net saving in lives at all. In fact, the procedure harms far more women than it helps.
But at the same time, it’s a “perfect weapon” for generating lucrative repeat business. If you’re an oncologist, the best way to ensure you’ll have a cancer patient to treat at age 55 is to start exposing them to radiation at age 40 (or earlier). It’s sort of like a diabetes clinic offering free candy to children: At some point, after they eat enough processed sugar, they’ll come back as repeat customers suffering from diabetes.

That’s why the cancer industry freaked out when a U.S. govt. task force issued its new cancer screening guidelines. All of a sudden, the cancer industry realized it would lose a lot of repeat business if the screenings stopped. So they lobbied hard for some sort of reversal.

And they nearly got it. Today Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went on the air to announce that the task force announcing the new mammography recommendations, “does not set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government.” She went on to explain, “My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important lifesaving tool in the fight against breast cancer and they still are today.”

In other words, keep getting your breasts irradiated. It’s important for the U.S. economy! The disease industry is counting on your future cancer, didn’t you know?

Confused?

The Associated Press says the new mammography recommendations from the government panel have “left women across the country confused about which advice to take.”

Confused? Really?

Let’s see, there’s a machine that smashes your breasts, that hurts like the devil, and that blasts your breasts, heart and lungs with cancer-causing radiation.

All the evidence now points to the fact that the risk of harm caused by the machine is far greater than the risk of have your life saved by early cancer detection — especially for women under 50.

So what is there to be confused about? The only confusion that exists is caused by the cancer industry itself which has always operated on the principle of keeping women uninformed and confused, knowing full well that people who are confused can be more easily manipulated with fear into surrendering to high-profit treatments like chemotherapy.

That’s the whole point of the industry, after all: To make money treating cancer, whether the patient needs it or not.
Big, big money to be made by giving women cancer
The cancer industry likes to hide behind the false idea that it’s “helping people” or “saving lives,” but in reality, it’s a for-profit industry that’s out to maximizing profits just like every other business. And as we all know, medical corporations have absolutely no ethics: They will engage in outright criminal fraud, bribery of doctors, falsifying clinical trial data, price-fixing their products and overcharging Medicaid programs, and other similar crimes, all of which have been documented here on NaturalNews.com.

For these same corporations to intentionally cause cancer in women as a strategy for future profits is just standard operating procedure. They don’t even think about acting with integrity or compassion: It’s all about the money. So what if a few million women have to die along the way, right? We’ve got shareholders to think about!

Cancer is a $200 billion a year business, Suzanne Somers told me yesterday in an exclusive interview with NaturalNews. That gives the industry 200 billion reasons to keep on exposing women to radiation and creating more repeat business. That’s why the cancer profiteers will fight these new recommendations tooth and nail — their livelihoods depend on making sure more women get cancer!

Mammography is, by any honest assessment, pure quackery. It’s no more accurate at detecting tumors needing acute treatment than just waving your hand over someone and guessing whether they have a tumor that needs treatment. In fact, waving your hand over someone is a lot less harmful, so it’s actually better.

A far better alternative is thermography. It can detect breast cancer tumors using the infrared heat emitted by a tumor’s blood supply. It’s non-invasive, safe, affordable and doesn’t involve deadly radiation.

And remember, even if you’re diagnosed with breast cancer, chemotherapy does not work on breast cancer! You’ll need a different, more natural approach. Read Suzanne Somers’ book “Knockout” to find some answers, or read about Vitamin D here on NaturalNews.

Source: NaturalNews.com

Related posts:

1. Mammograms and Increased Breast Cancer Risk - Follow-up Discussion on Recent Research In a previous article (http://www.cancerresearchinformation.com/breast-cancer-risk-raised-by-mammograms-research-shows/), the link between mammograms and...
2. Breast Cancer Risk Raised By Mammograms, Research Shows Elsewhere on this website, we have published information that suggests...
3. Mammograms May Contribute to Breast Cancer Risk Many parties, from doctors to the media and concerned family...

That article had highlighted a study presented at the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)’s annual meeting. The following article provides a short follow-up on this issue.

Study verifies mammography screenings cause cancer

by Mike Adams

A new study presented on December 1 at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) verified that annual mammography screenings may be responsible for causing breast cancer in women who are predisposed to the disease. Epidemiologist Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide from the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands suggests that doctors should be very cautious when screening younger women, especially those under age 30.

There are many conflicting reports about the benefits of mammography screenings, particularly among younger women below the age of 40. Because there is a high risk among women with genetic or familial predispositions to breast cancer when getting mammograms, Dr. Jansen-van der Weide and her research team are suggesting that these women get an alternative screening. Ultrasounds, MRIs, and heat thermography screenings are some alternatives that do not expose patients to radiation.

The study evaluated women in the high-risk group and determined that low-dose mammography radiation increased these women’s risk of developing breast cancer by 150 percent. Women under 20 who have had at least five mammograms are 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women who have never undergone low-dose mammography screenings.

Study authors emphasized the fact that doctors should be cautious in administering mammograms to younger women, especially those with a family history of breast cancer. Moderate- to low-risk women were not evaluated in the study. Alternative screening methods were encouraged in order to reduce the risk of women in high-risk groups from being harmed by radioactive exposure.

Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

What this study really reveals is that there is no reason for any women to ever receive a mammogram ever again. Ultrasound and thermography should now be the new standard for breast cancer detection screenings, as they do not subject women to excess radiation.

This study also reveals that mammograms are really “repeat business machines” for the cancer industry. When enough women are subjected to mammography, a windfall of future cancer patients is absolutely assured, and this translates into billions of dollars in profits for the businesses invested in cancer: Big Pharma, mammogram machine manufacturers, and so on.

In fact, mammograms represent the slickest marketing gimmick we’ve ever seen in modern medicine. It’s a technology that recruits new patients by actually causing the disease it claims to “detect.” No wonder all the cancer industry non-profit groups donate so much money to breast cancer screening — it’s the best way to keep their sponsors in business!

Just take a look at the Susan Komen for the Cure non-profit, and you’ll see that a huge percentage of all the money they raise for “finding a cure” is really redirected to funding “free breast cancer screenings” that target poor women. The purpose of this whole scheme is to herd more women into extremely profitable (and extremely dangerous) cancer treatment centers that generate billions for the cancer industry.

Source: NaturalNews.com

Related posts:

1. Breast Cancer Risk Raised By Mammograms, Research Shows Elsewhere on this website, we have published information that suggests...
2. Are Mammograms Causing More Breast Cancer? - Discussion We have several articles on mammograms on this website, and...
3. Mammograms May Contribute to Breast Cancer Risk Many parties, from doctors to the media and concerned family...

What’s more, the research showing the negative effects of mammograms on breast cancer risk is actually carried out by conventional medical or scientific researchers. Surely the truth is on its way out to the general public. Read more in the following article.

Mammograms cause breast cancer, groundbreaking new research declares

by S. L. Baker

Ever since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a look, finally, at the scientific evidence and announced new recommendations earlier this month for routine mammograms — specifically that women under 50 should avoid them and women over 50 should only get them every other year — the reactions from many women, doctors and the mainstream media have reached the point of near hysteria. Not getting annual mammograms, some say, means countless women will receive a virtual death sentence because their breast tumors won’t be discovered. But what is rarely discussed about mammograms is this: the tests could actually be causing many cases of breast cancer.

In fact, a new study just presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer. This is particularly worrisome because women who are at high risk for breast cancer are regularly pushed to start mammograms at a younger age — as early as 25 — and that means they are exposed to more radiation from mammography earlier and for more years than women who don’t have breast cancer in their family trees.

“For women at high risk for breast cancer, screening is very important, but a careful approach should be taken when considering mammography for screening young women, particularly under age 30,” Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide, Ph.D., an epidemiologist in the Department of Epidemiology and Radiology at University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, said in a statement to the media. “Further, repeated exposure to low-dose radiation should be avoided.”

Dr. Jansen-van der Weide and colleagues analyzed peer-reviewed, published medical research to investigate whether low-dose radiation exposure affects breast cancer risk among high-risk women. Out of the six studies included in this analysis, four looked at the effect of exposure to low-dose radiation among breast cancer gene mutation carriers. The other two studies traced the impact of radiation on women with a family history of breast cancer. The researchers took the combined data from all these research projects and then calculated odds ratios to estimate the risk of breast cancer caused by radiation.

The results? All the high-risk women in the study who were exposed to low-dose mammography type radiation had an increased risk of breast cancer that was 1.5 times greater than that of high-risk women who had not been exposed to low-dose radiation. What’s more, women at high risk for breast cancer who had been exposed to low-dose radiation before the age of 20 or who had five or more exposures to low-dose radiation were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women not exposed to low-dose radiation.

Bottom line: any supposed benefit of early tumor detection using mammograms in young women with familial or genetic predisposition to breast cancer is offset by the potential risk of radiation-induced cancer. “Our findings suggest that low-dose radiation increases breast cancer risk among these young high-risk women, and a careful approach is warranted,” Dr. Jansen-van der Weide said in the press statement.

The mammogram scam exposed

Incredibly, although it is rarely reported in the mainstream media, the new study follows on the heels of several others that have already sounded the warning that mammograms may cause breast cancer. For example, NaturalNews covered a Johns Hopkins study published earlier this year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (http://www.cancerresearchinformation.com/mammograms-may-contribute-to-breast-cancer-risk/) that warned radiation exposure from annual mammograms could trigger breast malignancies in women with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancers who have altered genes (identified as BRCA1 or BRCA2).

And it may not be only women with a familial risk for breast cancer who are at extra risk from mammography radiation. As NaturalNews covered last year, a report published in the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine found breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been linked to an increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.cancerresearchinformation.com/mammograms-found-to-increase-breast-cancer-rates-some-cancers-may-go-away-on-their-own/).

Comments by the Health Ranger, Editor of NaturalNews.com

Mammogram pushers now have nothing left to stand on. The complete and utter hoax of mammography has now been wholly discredited through a flurry of groundbreaking studies performed by conventional medicine researchers! Yes, even the industry’s own former advocates now admit mammography harms far more women than it helps.

Why? Because mammography causes the very disease it claims to “detect”. It’s much like a clever sleight-of-hand magician’s trick where they reach for your ear and suddenly produce a coin that was presumably hidden there. But as everybody knows, they put it there themselves! Mammograms offer a similar kind of sleight-of-hand trick (or sleight-of-breast, as the case may be) by actually generating the very disease they claim to find. If so many women hadn’t already been harmed by mammography, the whole thing would be quite hysterical.

“Early detection saves lives,” they say. Except they stupidly forget to tell women the other side of the story: “Mammograms cause cancer.” And if you’re gullible enough to actually irradiate your breasts every year, don’t be surprised — shocked! — if they someday find tumors in them.

Source: NaturalNews.com

Related posts:

1. Mammograms and Increased Breast Cancer Risk - Follow-up Discussion on Recent Research In a previous article (http://www.cancerresearchinformation.com/breast-cancer-risk-raised-by-mammograms-research-shows/), the link between mammograms and...
2. Mammograms May Contribute to Breast Cancer Risk Many parties, from doctors to the media and concerned family...
3. Are Mammograms Causing More Breast Cancer? - Discussion We have several articles on mammograms on this website, and...

The following article reveals more. Women, please take heed.

Early Mammograms May Trigger Genetic Breast Cancer

by Sherry Baker

What if a diagnostic test actually triggers the life-threatening disease it is supposed to detect? According to a Johns Hopkins study just published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, that may be exactly what happens when women at risk for genetic breast cancer are subjected to radiation exposure from annual mammograms.

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), about 13.2 percent of women in the general U.S. population will develop breast cancer. But scientists have found that many women (especially those with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancers) have altered genes, identified as BRCA1 or BRCA2, which raise the risk of breast malignancies to around 85 percent. It’s important to note that women are not routinely screened for an altered BRCA gene and the test costs several thousands of dollars. So, bottom line, many women unknowingly carry this genetic risk for cancer.

Often, this hereditary form of breast cancer strikes at mid-life or younger — so young women who have been tested and are found to have the deleterious gene are frequently advised to have their healthy breasts removed to prevent the disease. At the very least, they are told to have annual mammograms as early as 25 years of age.

But when Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, D.Phil., and colleagues at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, looked at breast cancer mortality statistics in this group of women following five annual mammograms starting at various ages, they found a disturbing trend: far more cases of breast cancer developed than were expected.

In fact, the study indicates that women who underwent five mammograms between the ages of 24 and 29 would have an additional 26 breast cancers per 10,000 women due to the radiation. Mammograms between the ages of 30 and 34 would produce an excess of 20 additional cancers and, between 35 and 39, an additional 13 cancers.

However, because women with the altered BRCA gene are at such high risk for breast cancer in the first place, does the hope of identifying early cancerous lesions outweigh the risk of possibly triggering mammography-induced breast cancer? The researchers say the answer appears to be no.

That’s because mammography screening would have to reduce breast cancer mortality by 51 percent to outweigh the risks of the screening procedured for women between the ages of 24 and 29, by 12 percent for those between 30 and 34, and by 4 percent for those between 30 and 34. If their assumptions are right, the researchers conclude there is no benefit for mammograms in women under the age of 30 and only a marginal benefit for women between the ages of 30 and 34.

“In the absence of direct empirical data, our estimates can be used by those involved in the decision-making process for BRCA mutation carriers to assess whether the benefits from early mammographic screening are likely to outweigh the radiation risks,” the researchers said in a statement to the media.

The idea that radiation might be harmful to women with this type of genetic breast cancer isn’t new. Back in 2001, an article in Medscape, an on-line journal for physicians and other healthcare professionals, stated “.. it is very likely that a routine mammogram for women with BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 mutations is more dangerous than for women with normal BRCA genes.” What’s more, the article points out that radiation therapy for BRCA-caused cancer, as well as the radiation from mammograms , may cause the malignancy to spread: “When a new tumor does appear in hereditary breast cancer, it may be a second primary (tumor) accelerated by unrepaired radiation damage while diagnosing or curing the first tumor.”

It’s also important to note that other researchers have questioned whether all women — not only those with hereditary breast cancer — are putting themselves at risk with yearly mammograms. For example, research published last fall showed that breast cancer rates soared after regular mammography was started in four Norwegian countries (http://www.cancerresearchinformation.com/mammograms-found-to-increase-breast-cancer-rates-some-cancers-may-go-away-on-their-own/). In addition, Samuel S. Epstein M.D., Professor Emeritus of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and his colleagues conducted a review of 47 scientific articles about mammography. Their article, “Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective, and Practical Alternative”, published in the International Journal of Health Services (2001;31(3):605-15) concluded that mammogram screening carries many dangers, including induction and promotion of breast cancer, falsely positive and negative diagnosis of breast cancer, and over-diagnosis.

The researchers noted that a natural way to check for breast cancer has long been available that is at least as effective as mammography — annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health professional, together with monthly breast self-examination (BSE). On the horizon: a new non-invasive breast cancer test that uses a simple saliva sample

Source: NaturalNews.com

Related posts:

1. Mammograms and Increased Breast Cancer Risk - Follow-up Discussion on Recent Research In a previous article (http://www.cancerresearchinformation.com/breast-cancer-risk-raised-by-mammograms-research-shows/), the link between mammograms and...
2. Breast Cancer Risk Raised By Mammograms, Research Shows Elsewhere on this website, we have published information that suggests...
3. Are Mammograms Causing More Breast Cancer? - Discussion We have several articles on mammograms on this website, and...

She began her studies in biology at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, where she was awarded the Bachelor of Arts in 1950 , Magna Cum Laude. Dr. Clark was awarded a Master of Arts degree, with High Honors from the University of Saskatchewan. After two years of study at McGill University, Dr. Clark was awarded her Doctorate degree in physiology by the University of Minnesota in 1958. Dr. Clark studies throughout focused on biophysics and cell physiology.

Dr. Clark established a nutritional consulting practice in the late 1960’s as a complement to her university research at the University of Indiana. In 1974 when Federal research funds were eliminated, she began private nutritional consulting on a full time basis. She obtained a naturopathy degree at the Clayton College of Natural Health.

Dr. Clark focused on consulting and independent research in all aspects of human disease, especially cancer.

This research took her down many avenues; from the study of parasites, bacteria, viruses and fungus to heavy metals, solvents and lately radioactivity. She wanted to find out how the human body cells react to these invaders.

She came up with many solutions to rid our bodies of these invaders. Dr. Clark researched the use of herbs, essential oils, orthomolecular therapy and frequency therapy. She focused on the importance of dental health, as well as everyday awareness of environmental factors.

Her most important discovery was the zapper. Zapping means electrocuting pathogens and for years she used a frequency generator to “zap” one pathogen after another. In 1994 her son built a hand held, battery operated, accurate frequency generator. The purpose was to kill the intestinal fluke but she then noticed that the battery-operated zapper killed all pathogens without having to set in a specific frequency. This was a great time-saver.

Another key invention of Dr. Clark is the Syncrometer. It is an audio oscillator circuit that tunes for and detects the resonance in all things in much the same way a radio tuner located a specific station. The Syncrometer can scan for anything in the body – be it an object, an organ, a chemical or virus because everything has a characteristic frequency or set of frequencies.

Dr. Clark undertook all of her research with her Syncrometer and detected the causes of cancer, HIV and other “mysterious” diseases.
Her approach was quite simple. With the use of the Syncrometer she would search for common denominators (e.g. toxins, pathogens) in each case she undertook that was suffering from the same disease (for ex. cancer).

As Dr. Clark would become certain of a discovery, she would seek confirmation of her more critical findings with conventional independent laboratory analysis. This was often difficult because the Syncrometer detects to specificity well beyond the capabilities of most laboratory analysis.

Dr. Clark has written 7 books of which 5 concerning cancer. In them Dr. Clark details her methods, her results, and her conclusions for all to read. In her later books she describes in detail her newest frequency technologies such as plate-zapping and homeography. In addition each cancer book contains a specific holistic cancer fighting program.

Dr. Clark, with her self-health approach, has touched countless individuals around the globe who have been able to help themselves with the knowledge that she has provided. Dr. Clark endured severe attacks by professional adversaries as well as Government Officials. She nevertheless carried on sharing her knowledge for the benefit of health and mankind.

We are thankful for Dr. Clark’s unselfish dedication and lasting contributions to all.

Dr. Clark passed away in her sleep on September 3rd 2009 in Chula Vista California.

Related posts:

1. Cancer Treatment - Comparing Natural and Conventional Methods The way cancer is treated depends very much on how...
2. An Example of A Natural Cancer Treatment Protocol If you are familiar with natural cancer protocols, or so-called...
3. Choosing An Alternative Cancer Treatment - How A Breast Cancer Sufferer Made Her Decision When one is diagnosed with the much-dreaded disease called "cancer",...

How about allergic reactions, then? Are there any health benefits to them? Remarkably, research has linked allergies to a lower risk of getting cancer.

Allergies Linked to Reduced Cancer Risk

by Reuben Chow

In the instant-solution and quick-fix world that is the present day, allergy reactions are often quelled using chemical drugs in order to bring about a quick end to any physical discomfort which one may be going through. However, recent research published in The Quarterly Review of Biology has strongly suggested that allergies have an important role to play - protection against toxic substances which cause certain types of cancer.

Details and Findings of Study

The article, which was written by researchers from Cornell University, has given an indication that the symptoms of allergies may help ward off cancer by doing their part to expel foreign particles, some of which may be carcinogenic or carry carcinogens with them, from the body. Allergic reactions also serve as alarm bells for potential harmful substances in the air.

A link between allergies and cancer has long been postulated in the medical community. But after many studies carried out on the subject, confusion still persists, with some studies finding positive correlation between the two (i.e. cancer patients suffered from more allergies), some finding the opposite, and some unable to establish any association at all.

But some light was shed when the Cornell study team looked at close to 650 previous studies carried out in the last half a century and examined the effects of different types of cancer as well as specific types of allergic reactions. Their findings were more than interesting.

Stronger Link Found in Organs Which Had Direct Contact With Environmental Particles

Negative correlation between allergies and cancer were a lot more likely to be found with regard to cancers of organs which had direct contact with particles from the environment external to the body. These include the mouth, throat, cervix, pancreas, glial brain cells, colon as well as rectum. Just to recap, a negative correlation means that those who suffered more from allergies were less likely to also have cancer - this implies a protective effect of the former on the latter.

Such negative correlation, however, was less likely for cancers of tissues which were more isolated, such as the breasts, prostate and meningeal brain cells; correlation was also weaker for myeloma, myelocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

With regard to specific types of allergic reactions, negative correlation between allergies and cancer was only found for those reactions associated with bodily tissues which had direct exposure to external attacks - namely eczema, food allergies, meat allergies, hay fever and hives.

Exception for Asthma and Lung Cancer

It seems that an exception may exist for asthma and lung cancer, though. Most of the previous studies analyzed had found a positive correlation between the two. And the study team explained that, “essentially, asthma obstructs clearance of pulmonary mucous, blocking any potentially prophylactic benefit of allergic expulsion”. On the flip side, other lung-related allergies have protective effects.

Should We Be Suppressing Allergic Reactions?

The key takeaway from this study is that, if allergies are the body’s natural means of protecting itself against disease, then why are we turning this mechanism off via artificial intervention?

According to the study team, more research in this area will be needed. “We hope that our analyses and arguments will encourage such cost / benefit analyses. More importantly, we hope that our work will stimulate reconsideration [...] of the current prevailing view [...] that allergies are merely disorders of the immune system which, therefore, can be suppressed with impunity,” wrote the team, which was led by Paul Sherman, a professor of neurobiology and behavior at Cornell.

The Importance of Uncomfortable Symptoms

In reality, the findings of this study will not come as a huge surprise to those who are vaguely familiar with the basics of natural health and healing. Running noses, coughs, skin breakouts and other symptoms are the body’s way of eliminating toxins and unwanted materials which it finds it cannot carry out via the more usual channels. While conventional medicine likes to suppress them, natural healers know that they can be valuable for healing.

In fact, some natural healers even deliberately induce symptoms to speed up the body’s recovery processes. One symptom which comes to mind is fever, which helps to kill invading organisms, stimulates the body’s production of more immune cells, as well as increases the activity of these cells.

Suppressing symptoms may bring short-term relief for physical discomfort, but it has the potential to do untold harm to the body in the long run. Unfortunately, that is exactly what most people are doing today via the use of chemical medications, which are themselves a source of toxins for the body. What a strange irony.

Source

The Upside to Allergies: Cancer Prevention (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showStoryContent?doi=10.1086%2F%2Fpr.2008.010.27.1828&cookieSet=1)

Related posts:

1. Cancer and Sugar - Studies Which Show The Link One of the most important things a cancer suffererer needs...
2. Cancer Survivors Struggle With Employment Cancer, without doubt, is a much feared and potentially debilitating...
3. Overeating Linked to Cancer Since time memorial, fasting has been advocated as a means...

These studies are briefly described in the following article. While this information sounds rather ominous for organ transplant recipients, it could also serve as motivation for such persons to take additional precautions against the disease.

Four Studies: Increased Cancer Risk in Immunity-Suppressed Organ Transplant Recipients

by Reuben Chow

Organ transplants give many people a new shot at life, a second chance which they might not have had if not for this medical procedure. Life, though, is never quite the same again, and organ recipients have to take immunosuppressant drugs to keep their bodies from rejecting their new organs. By having their immune systems suppressed, however, organ recipients become more susceptible to various health conditions, including infections. Unfortunately, they are also a lot more vulnerable to developing cancer, as various studies have repeatedly shown, including four recent ones highlighted here.

1. Kidney Transplant Recipients and Melanoma

In 2005, a study conducted at the Penn State College of Medicine looked at the data of 89,786 kidney transplant recipients and compared it to the general population. Led by Christopher S. Hollenbeak, PhD, the study team found that kidney transplant recipients were 3.6 times more likely to get melanoma when compared with the general population. They also found that the risk continued to escalate with each passing year after transplant, at about 5% per year.

Published in Cancer, a journal of the American Cancer Society, the study also revealed that men had higher risk than women, and that their risk increased with age. Blacks, on the other hand, were 7 times less likely to get the condition as compared to other races.

Melanoma is the deadliest of the various types of skin cancer. Typical risk factors are sunburns, a weak immune system and family history of abnormal moles. Previous studies drawing a link between organ transplants and melanoma risk had been inconsistent, possibly because it was more difficult to spot trends due to the relatively low incidence rates of this particular cancer.

2. Kidney Transplant Recipients and 20 Different Types of Cancer

An article published in The Lancet in mid 2007 revealed that HIV / AIDS patients and kidney transplant recipients had a higher risk of developing some 20 different kinds of cancer as compared to the general population.

For kidney transplant recipients, they were almost 4 times as likely to get Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and they also had significantly higher risks for developing cervical cancer as well as cancers of the mouth, penis and anus. In addition, kidney recipients were 208 times more likely to get Kaposi’s sarcoma. This sounds alarming, until we realize that HIV / AID patients were 3,640 times more likely to get this disease.

The key probably lies in compromised immune systems and the susceptibility of both groups of people to viruses. “The only thing that people with AIDS and transplant recipients share is immune deficiency, otherwise their risk factors for cancer differ markedly. In other cancers, which are not linked with viruses, such as breast and prostate cancer, both groups had similar rates to the general population,” said Professor Andrew Grulich from the University of New South Wales’ National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research (NCHECR), who led the study. Indeed, according to him, “this evidence suggests that immune deficiency is associated with risk of cancer”.

3. Liver Transplant Recipients and Various Types of Cancer

A study in Finland which was published in the October 2008 issue of Liver Transplantation found that liver transplant recipients were 2.59 times more likely to get non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, while their risks for non-melanoma skin cancer and basal cell carcinoma were also significantly raised.

The study, led by Helena Isoniemi from Finland, examined 540 cases of liver transplant patients from Helsinki University Central Hospital who had received their new organs between 1982 and 2005. It also used data from the Finnish Population Register as well as the national Cancer Registry.

“Based on our data, one out of six liver transplant patients is estimated to develop some form of cancer by 20 years after transplantation. This study points out the importance of cancer surveillance after liver transplantation,” said the study team.

4. Liver Transplant Recipients and All Types of Cancer

Most recently, a population-based cohort study in Canada found that liver transplant recipients were at higher risk (about 2.5 times) for cancer, especially non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and colorectal cancer, when compared to the general population. It also found that the higher risk was more pronounced among younger recipients as well as during the initial year after the procedure.

The study team, led by Ying Jiang from the Public Health Agency of Canada, looked at information from the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry as well as databases of the national mortality and cancer incidences. Persons who had liver cancer and those who had been diagnosed with any kind of cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) before or in the immediate 30 days after they received their new organs were excluded.

2,034 transplant recipients who had received new organs between June 1983 and October 1998 were tracked for up to 15 years, and it was found that their risk of any cancer was about 2.5 times that of the general population. According to the study team, this figure is lower than what previous studies had estimated, with a possible reason being that liver cancer and non-melanoma cancer patients were excluded.

“A striking finding in our study is the approximate twenty-fold increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among liver transplant patients relative to the general population. As a proportion of all cancers, it represented 55.8 percent of the absolute excess number of cancers among liver transplant patients,” said the study team. The increased risk for colorectal cancer could possibly be because of inflammatory bowel disease being more prevalent among transplant recipients.

Published in the November 2008 issue of Liver Transplantation, the study’s conclusion was clear. “Our findings firmly support an increased incidence of cancer in this patient population.”

The Bottom Line

The findings of these and other studies differ somewhat in that they point to different types of cancer and varying risk profiles for different groups of people. But for organ transplant recipients, the message is quite clear and coherent – there is the need for them to take even better care of their bodies than the average person in order to ward off diseases.

And for the rest of us, these research results also reaffirm the importance of the immune system in fighting off cancer – any type of cancer. Reducing our intake of substances which compromise this wonderful system – this includes both from our food and from chemicals found in everyday products such as soaps and shampoos, as well as investing in top quality immune-boosting foods and supplements would thus be important measures we can take to safeguard our health.

Main Source

ScienceDaily.com

Related posts:

1. HIV Sufferers Have Double The Cancer Risk A study which was recently conducted at the John Hopkins...
2. Overweight Women Found to Have Higher Risk of Advanced Breast Cancer Previous studies had linked obesity and excess weight to higher...
3. Obesity Linked in Study to Higher Ovarian Cancer Risk According to a recent study, post-menopausal women who are obese...

However, in reality, there is very little evidence, statistically, that cancer screening actually does help to improve survival rates or save lives. Detractors even go as far as to say that cancer screening is nothing more than a money-making machine, which would frankly be quite consistent with a lot of other aspects of pharmaceutical medicine.

For every person saved, how many are harmed? And, even if some statistics suggest benefit, the question must be asked - are those figures objective, or are they manipulated and presented to support vested commercial interests?

Here, Dr Julian Whitaker, one of the foremost leaders of alternative medicine in the United States, in an article first published on NaturalNews, brings us through some of the pitfalls of cancer screening. Read it carefully and take it seriously - this information can quite literally save lives.

Cancer Screening: Does It Really Save Lives?

by Dr Julian Whitaker

Anne is a good patient. She sees her doctor for regular checkups, has yearly mammograms, Pap tests, and colon cancer screenings, and she even paid for a full-body CT scan out of her own pocket. She figures she’s doing everything she can to make sure she doesn’t get cancer.

Truth is, Anne is doing nothing to prevent cancer. Although cancer screening is billed as a preventive service that saves lives, the best it can do is detect disease in its early stages, when it is supposedly easier to treat. Nevertheless, every year millions of Americans dutifully line up for their screenings, completely unaware that they may be doing more harm than good.

For more than 15 years, I’ve been warning patients about the downside of mammograms, PSA testing, and the overall concept of cancer screening. It hasn’t been a popular position. Today, however, there’s a small but growing band of researchers, clinicians, and expert panels who are speaking out against the unbridled use of these tests. One of them, H. Gilbert Welch, MD, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School, has laid out very persuasive arguments in an aptly titled book, Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here’s Why. In this straightforward and well-referenced book, Dr. Welch raises several concerns about cancer screening.

1. Few People Benefit From Screening
For starters, the majority of folks who are screened receive no benefit. That’s because, despite scary statistics, most people will not get cancer. Let’s look at breast cancer as an example.

According to government statistics, the absolute risk of a 60-year-old woman dying from breast cancer in the next 10 years is 9 in 1,000. If regular mammograms reduce this risk by one-third-a widely cited but by no means universally accepted claim-her odds fall to 6 in 1,000. Therefore, for every 1,000 women screened, three of them avoid death from breast cancer, six die regardless, and the rest? They can’t possibly benefit because they weren’t going to die from the disease in the first place.

If mammograms worked as touted, death from breast cancer would be rare, since three-quarters of American women 40 and older get regular screenings (a total of 33.5 million per year). The modest decline in the death rate from the mid-1970s, when mammography was introduced, through the present can be attributed to factors other than screening, such as changes in treatment and the dramatic decrease in the use of Premarin and other cancer-promoting hormone replacement drugs. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that mammograms do not substantially reduce risk of death from breast cancer.

2. The Most Deadly Cancers Are Missed
The flip side is that some people who are screened get cancer and die anyway. Test results aren’t always accurate. Sometimes cancer is there, but it’s missed (false negatives). In the case of mammograms, it could be a question of a poor-quality test or a radiologist who overlooked something. Even experienced radiologists don’t always interpret test results the same, and sometimes they just plain get it wrong.

The most likely reason that cancer is overlooked, however, is due to the nature of cancer itself. The deadliest cancers grow very rapidly. Screening can detect slow-growing cancers in their early stages, but you can see how aggressive cancers could be missed if you’re only looking for them once a year. Depending on the cancer’s growth cycle, it could crop up just months after screening and be far advanced by the time the next test rolls around.

3. The Pitfalls of False Positives
Far more common than false negatives are false positives-those cancer scares that occur when you’re told that your test is suspicious but, after further evaluation, turns out to be nothing. False positives lead to confirmatory testing such as ultrasound of the breast and prostate, CT scan of the lung, colonoscopy, and colposcopy of the cervix. These tests are at best inconvenient and at worst extremely unpleasant, as anyone who’s had a colonoscopy knows. They also often lead to biopsies, which are far more invasive and could possibly promote the spread of cancer.

Unfortunately, false positive rates are incredibly high. For mammography, it’s close to 10 percent. For every 100 women screened, 10 will require further workup. If you repeat this screening test every year for 10 years, your cumulative risk of having at least one false positive rises to 65 percent. This means that more than half of all women will get the terrifying news that their mammogram is abnormal-the first step on the slippery slope of intervention.

False positive rates are high for PSA as well, especially among older men. Some estimate that three-quarters of men who have a prostate biopsy based on an elevated PSA level do not have cancer. And lifetime false-positive risk for Pap smears is 75 percent.
Another consideration is the psychological trauma of cancer screening. Being told you might have cancer is a harrowing experience, and the lag time between retesting and getting a clean bill of health can be months.

4. Unnecessary Treatment
Even worse than the sound and fury created by false positives is unnecessary treatment. Yes, some lives are saved due to early detection and treatment. But not all cancers are the same. Some are deadly, treated or not; others are not fatal regardless of treatment. Dr. Welch calls the latter pseudodisease-small, slow-growing or nonprogressive cancers that you’d never know existed were it not for screening tests. Yet all too often, these innocuous tumors are attacked with a vengeance, often to the detriment of patients.

A prime example is prostate cancer. Since 1975, its incidence has more than doubled. But rather than having an epidemic of prostate cancer, what we have is an epidemic of detection. Although many more men are being diagnosed and treated, the death rate from prostate cancer has held steady at 3 percent.

It’s human nature, when given a diagnosis of cancer, to want to get rid of it. But prostate cancer treatment is not benign. Surgical complications include difficulty urinating (17 percent), urinary incontinence (28 percent), and inability to have an erection (more than 50 percent). Radiation damages the rectum and can cause diarrhea and bowel urgency. Side effects of androgen suppression range from sexual dysfunction to risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Much of this treatment is completely unwarranted. Remember, the majority of prostate cancer is pseudodisease. Most men die with it, not of it.

What Tests Should You Get?
So which tests should you get and when should you get them? It depends on who you listen to. Unfortunately, there’s no clear consensus among expert panels and advocacy groups, so confusion reigns.

I hesitate to make blanket recommendations. However, before you have a test, I strongly encourage you to understand both the pros-the slim but potentially lifesaving possibility that early-stage, clinically significant cancer will be found and treated-and the cons-the high risk of false positives, additional testing, anxiety, and unnecessary treatment. That way, you’ll be better prepared to deal with the outcome, whatever it may be.

Think Twice
I understand that this is an emotionally charged issue. Cancer is scary and the treatments for it are as frightening as the disease itself. If you have symptoms of cancer, by all means see a doctor and discuss appropriate testing.

Otherwise, think twice. If your physician orders a cancer screening test, question its necessity. Doctors sometimes suggest these tests for all the wrong reasons: fears of malpractice, financial incentives, and even patient demand. Find out what course would be recommended if your results were positive. Then review the information in this article, read Dr. Welch’s book, and make your own educated decision.

Next time you hear that someone who died of cancer would have been saved if only he’d had regular testing, realize that’s nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. And, whatever you do, don’t let anyone make you feel irresponsible if you elect not to undergo cancer screening.

References
*SEER. Cancer of the breast. National Cancer Institute. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html Accessed Sept. 2, 2008.
*US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/cps3dix.htm#cancer Accessed Aug 25, 2008.
*Welch HG. Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2004.

Reprinted from Dr. Julian Whitaker’s Health & Healing with permission from Healthy Directions, LLC. For information on subscribing to this newsletter, visit www.drwhitaker.com or call (800) 539-8219.

About Julian Whitaker, MD: America’s Wellness Doctor, Julian Whitaker, MD, is a pioneer in alternative medicine and founder of the Whitaker Wellness Institute in Newport Beach, CA, the country’s largest alternative medicine clinic. Since 1979, Whitaker Wellness has helped more than 40,000 patients reverse serious health problems with lifestyle changes, nutritional supplements, and other safe, nontoxic therapies.

Source: NaturalNews.com

Related posts:

1. Mammograms May Contribute to Breast Cancer Risk Many parties, from doctors to the media and concerned family...
2. The Dangers and Futility of Mammograms Mammograms help detect breast cancer early, thereby increasing the chances...
3. Are Mammograms Causing More Breast Cancer? - Discussion We have several articles on mammograms on this website, and...

Yet, one of the most potent tools in how to prevent breast cancer, or any type of cancer for that matter, is free and widely available to all - exercise and physical activity. The following article reveals more.

Vigorous Activity Lowers Risk of Breast Cancer in Women

by Reuben Chow

Recent research published in the journal Breast Cancer Research has found that vigorous activities, which include chores such as digging in the garden and heavy housework, lower the risk of women getting breast cancer. This protective effect, however, only applied to women who were in the normal weight range.

About Breast Cancer

In 2004, over 185,000 women and more than 1,800 men in the United States alone were diagnosed with breast cancer, while almost 41,000 women and 362 men succumbed to the disease.

In that year, breast cancer was the number two cancer killer of American women, ranked only after non-melanoma skin cancer, while also being their number five killer overall. In addition, for Hispanic women, breast cancer was the number one cancer killer.

In Canada, the picture isn’t much better either. Among Canadian women, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer. The Canadian Cancer Society has estimated that some 22,400 women will be diagnosed with it this year, while about 5,300 will succumb to the disease.

Details of Study

Exercise has already been heavily linked with the prevention of many chronic diseases. Also, previously, other studies had suggested that women who went through more physical activity had lower risks of getting breast cancer. But this time, the researchers dug deeper.

In this study, conducted by the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health, more than 32,000 women from across the United States were tracked for a period of 11 years. The average age of the subjects was 61, and all of them were free from chronic diseases at the start of the study. The participants were made to fill out a detailed questionnaire regarding their physical activity.

The survey asked the participants to estimate the typical number of hours which they spent each day carrying out various physical activities. These included moderate activities such as bowling, gardening, hiking, jogging lightly, mowing the lawn, vacuuming the floor and walking.

They also included vigorous activities such as aerobics, chopping wood, competitive tennis, cycling on hills, digging in the garden, fast dancing, heavy housework, heavy yard work, jogging quickly, running, scrubbing the floors and washing the windows.

Findings of Study

Overall, the participants of the study spent an average of 5.9 hours each day taking part in non-vigorous activities, and an average of 1.2 hours doing vigorous activities. By the end of 11 years, 1,506 of the women had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

The study found that the women who were the most active had a 13% lower risk of getting post-menopausal breast cancer, when compared with their least active counterparts.

A significant finding is that this difference was a lot more pronounced in women in the normal weight range (body mass index below 25). For this group, the difference in risk between the most active and least active women was 30%.

On the other hand, for women who were overweight or obese, there was no difference in risk between the most active and least active women.

“The association with physical activity was essentially limited to the leaner women,” said Dr Michael Leitzmann, leader of the study.

The Implications

One limitation of the study was that it only measured the level of physical activity once, which would not have given a very accurate reflection of the women’s level of physical activity over the whole period of the study. Even then, the study team still felt that physical activity in mid to late adulthood had an important influence on the risk of breast cancer.

And, from the findings of the study, we can probably draw two conclusions. Firstly, even for women who are in the normal weight range, a sedentary lifestyle is still a risk factor for breast cancer. Further, for overweight women, being physically more active did not seem to help.

The bottomline? If you are serious about averting breast cancer, you may want to watch your weight, and make sure you are getting enough vigorous exercise.

Main Source

Intense activity curbs breast cancer risk (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=c4e29bc0-f117-4dbb-9f41-eaa9b2902708)

Related posts:

1. More Physical Activity Means Less Cancer Risk Yet another study has linked the level of physical activity...
2. Exercise and Physical Activity Lowers Risk of Colon and Rectal Cancers Exercise is critical for good health. A study published in...
3. Overweight Women Found to Have Higher Risk of Advanced Breast Cancer Previous studies had linked obesity and excess weight to higher...

The following article highlights research which suggests the opposite is in fact the case - that statins increase prostate cancer risk in obese men, instead.

Statins Raise Prostate Cancer Risk of Obese Men

by Reuben Chow

A study conducted earlier this year at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research in Seattle found that the use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, especially when used long-term, seems to raise the risk of prostate cancer among obese men.

Background

Statin drugs inhibits the enzyme which controls the conversion of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A to mevalonate; mevalonate is an essential precursor of cholesterol. Thus, statins are used extensively to treat high cholesterol.

In some studies, statin drugs have been shown to lower the incidence and mortality rates of cardiovascular disease. This has contributed to the skyrocketing use of statins over the last decade or so.

With specific regard to prostate cancer, the use of statins has also recently raised interest. Without being too technical, it suffices to say that, by inhibiting certain processes and chemicals, statin drugs directly or indirectly influence cell signaling pathways, cell growth, cell apoptosis, cell proliferation, inflammation, oxidative stress, angiogenesis and metastasis. These factors all influence cancer in some way.

Some observational studies had previously shown that statin use lowers prostate cancer risk, while others have not found any connection. In fact, in two studies, statin use was linked to an increase in overall risk of getting prostate cancer. The Fred Hutchinson study, which was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, thus sought to further examine the relationship between statin use and prostate cancer risk.

Details and Findings of Study

In the study, which was population-based and case-controlled, 1,001 men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2002 and 2005 were compared with 942 cancer-free controls from King County in Washington. The two groups of men were matched for age.

Overall, there was no connection observed between current or previous use of statin drugs and the risk of prostate cancer. Duration of statin use also did not seem to affect prostate cancer risk.

In an interview with Reuters Health, Dr Janet L. Stanford, who led the study, said, “We also found no evidence that use of a statin was associated with risk of developing more aggressive subtypes of prostate cancer. Overall we found no support for the current hypothesis that statin use may reduce risk of prostate cancer.”

However, the findings of the study also indicate a significant increase in prostate cancer risk for obese men who currently use statins. Longer durations of use of the drugs also increased risk. Obesity is defined as having a body mass index of 30 or more.

“Among obese men, current use of a statin was associated with a 50 percent increase in risk of prostate cancer; and use for 5 or more years was associated with an 80 percent increase in risk of the disease; both of these risk estimates were statistically significant,” said Dr Stanford.

Bottom Line

With obesity on the rise and statin drugs routinely prescribed, there is probably a greater need for the medical community and the public at large to take note and take action. At least this study helps to debunk the theory that statin drugs may actually lower prostate cancer risk.

“Given the epidemic of obesity in the US and the frequent use of statins, the positive association we observed raises substantial concern as to the safety of these widely prescribed agents,” added Dr Stanford.

High cholesterol sufferers on statin drugs may want to start exploring natural and safe solutions.

Main Sources

Prostate cancer risk increased in obese men: study (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSPAT26581320080822)

Statin Use and Risk of Prostate Cancer: Results from a Population-based Epidemiologic Study (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578434)

Related posts:

1. Prostate Cancer Risk Elevated by Gonorrhea and Promiscuous Sex Life A study conducted at the University of Michigan has found...
2. Overweight Prostate Cancer Sufferers More Likely to Die of the Disease If one is obese, one has a much higher probability...
3. Simple Lifestyle and Dietary Changes Stopped Aggressive Prostate Cancer; 36% Did Not Need Further Treatment A study conducted at Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridgeshire found that,...