The Big C Is Not for Me!

Blessings arrive in unexpected packages, - in my case, cancer. Those of us with potentially fatal diseases - and there are millions in America today - find ourselves in the odd position of coping with our mortality while trying to fathom God's will. Although it would be the height of presumption to declare with confidence "What It All Means," Scripture provides powerful hints and consolations

The first is that we shouldn't spend too much time trying to answer the "why" questions: Why me? Why must people suffer? Why can't someone else get sick? We can't answer such things, and the questions themselves often are designed more to express our anguish than to solicit an answer. I don't know why I have cancer, and I don't much care. It is what it is, a plain and indisputable fact. Yet even while staring into a mirror darkly, great and stunning truths begin to take shape. Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out. But despite this, - or because of it, - God offers the possibility of salvation and grace. We don't know how the narrative of our lives will end, but we get to choose how to use the interval between now and the moment we meet our Creator face-to-face.

Second, we need to get past the anxiety. The mere thought of dying can send adrenaline flooding through your system. A dizzy, unfocused panic seizes you. Your heart thumps; your head swims. You think of nothingness and swoon. You fear partings; you worry about the impact on family and friends. You fidget and get nowhere.

To regain footing, remember that we were born not into death, but into life,- and that the journey continues after we have finished our days on this earth. We accept this on faith, but that faith is nourished by a conviction that stirs even within many non believing hearts - an intuition that the gift of life, once given, cannot be taken away. Those who have been stricken enjoy the special privilege of being able to fight with their might, main, and faith to live fully, richly, exuberantly - no matter how their days may be numbered.

Third, we can open our eyes and hearts. God relishes surprise. We want lives of simple, predictable ease,- smooth, even trails as far as the eye can see - but God likes to go off-road. He provokes us with twists and turns. He places us in predicaments that seem to defy our endurance; and comprehension - and yet don't. By His love and grace, we persevere. The challenges that make our hearts leap and stomachs churn invariably strengthen our faith and grant measures of wisdom and joy we would not experience otherwise.

'You Have Been Called'. Picture yourself in a hospital bed. The fog of anesthesia has begun to wear away. A doctor stands at your feet, a loved one holds your hand at the side. "It's cancer," the healer announces.

The natural reaction is to turn to God and ask him to serve as a cosmic Santa. "Dear God, make it all go away. Make everything simpler." But another voice whispers: "You have been called." Your quandary has drawn you closer to God, closer to those you love, closer to the issues that matter - and has dragged into insignificance the b anal concerns that occupy our "normal time."

There's another kind of response, although usually short-lived an inexplicable shudder of excitement, as if a clarifying moment of calamity has swept away everything trivial and tiny, and placed before us the challenge of important questions. The moment you enter the Valley of the Shadow of Death, things change. You discover that Christianity is not something doughy, passive, pious and soft. Faith may be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But it also draws you into a world shorn of fearful caution. The life of belief teems with thrills, boldness, danger, shocks, reversals, triumphs, and epiphanies. Think of Paul, traipsing through the known world and contemplating trips to what must have seemed the antipodes (Spain), shaking the dust from his sandals, worrying not about the morrow, but only about the moment. There's nothing wilder than a life of humble virtue, - for it is through selflessness and service that God wrings from our bodies and spirits the most we ever could give, the most we ever could offer, and the most we ever could do.

Finally, we can let love change everything. When Jesus was faced with the prospect of crucifixion, he grieved not for himself, but for us. He cried for Jerusalem before entering the holy city. From the Cross, he took on the cumulative burden of human sin and weakness, and begged for forgiveness on our behalf.

We get repeated chances to learn that life is not about us, that we acquire purpose and satisfaction by sharing in God's love for others. Sickness gets us part way there. It reminds us of our limitations and dependence. But it also gives us a chance to serve the healthy. A minister friend of mine observes that people suffering grave afflictions often acquire the faith of two people, while loved ones accept the burden of two peoples' worries and fears.

'Learning How to Live'. Most of us have watched friends as they drifted toward God's arms, not with resignation, but with peace and hope. In so doing, they have taught us not how to die, but how to live. They have emulated Christ by transmitting the power and authority of love. I sat by my best friend's bedside a few years ago as a wasting cancer took him away. He kept at his table a worn Bible and a 1928 edition of the Book of Common Prayer. A shattering grief disabled his family, many of his old friends, and at least one priest. Here was an humble and very good guy, someone who apologized when he winced with pain because he thought it made his guest uncomfortable. He retained his equanimity and good humor literally until his last conscious moment. "I'm going to try to beat [this cancer]," he told me several months before he died. "But if I don't, I'll see you on the other side." His gift was to remind everyone around him that even though God doesn't promise us tomorrow, he does promise us eternity, - filled with life and love we cannot comprehend, - and that one can in the throes of sickness point the rest of us toward timeless truths that will help us weather future storms.

Through such trials, God bids us to choose: Do we believe, or do we not?

Will we be bold enough to love, daring enough to serve, humble enough to submit, and strong enough to acknowledge our limitations? Can we surrender our concern in things that don't matter so that we might devote our remaining days to things that do?

When our faith flags, he t hrows reminders in our way. Think of the prayer warriors in our midst. They change things, and those of us who have been on the receiving end of their petitions and intercessions know it. It is hard to describe, but there are times when suddenly the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, and you feel a surge of the Spirit. Somehow you just know:
Others have chosen, when talking to the Author of all creation, to lift us up - to speak of us!

This is love of a very special order. But so is the ability to sit back and appreciate the wonder of every created thing. The mere thought of death somehow makes every blessing vivid, every happiness more luminous and intense. We may not know how our contest with sickness will end, but we have felt the ineluctable touch of God.

What is man that Thou art mindful of him? We don't know much, but we know this : No matter where we are, no matter what we do, no matter how bleak or frightening our prospects, each and every one of us who believe, each and every day, lies in the same safe and impregnable place, in the hollow of God's hand.

T. Snow

AMERICA - Founded on God's Law and Christian Principles
Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty. II Cor. 3:17

Before anything productive can come of the study of cancer, one must lose any prejudices that tobacco smoke and only tobacco smoke causes cancer. Most sensible people know that cancer has many causes. Unfortunately, a dwindling number of people realize that many people who smoke never get cancer. First, when you hear that some outrageous percentage of people with cancer are smokers, you can pretty much bet that it has been misspoken. To get those large percentages, a "researcher" must broaden the scope to tobacco-related under the correct assumption that most people reading the research will not wonder what is meant by tobacco-related. What is tobacco-related? Well, that would be any relationship to tobacco use--smokers, ex-smokers, passive smokers, ex-passive-smokers, anyone who's ever walked into a smoky bar at some point in their life, et cetera. In other words, if you actually read the reports and comprehend what they say, you will realize that the reports actually say that a large percentage of cancer patients come from a large percentage of the population! That isn't much of a correlation, is it. For example, take a look at the following from Tests 'may triple lung cancer survival' by Roger Highfield, Science Editor, Telegraph, 19/09/2007 (emphasis added):

Dr James Willey, who presented the findings at an international conference hosted by the American Association for Cancer Research in Atlanta, Georgia, said: "Smoking causes about 90 per cent of all lung cancer cases, yet only about 10 to 15 per cent of heavy smokers will develop lung cancer. We are looking for new techniques that will allow us to pick out the 10 to 15 per cent of individuals at highest risk for lung cancer."

In a second study presented in Atlanta, researchers have found a protein in blood they say is linked to all stages of lung cancer but which rarely shows up in the blood of people without the disease. Testing could help decide whether smokers or others at high risk of lung cancer should be referred for scans.

Researchers continually profess the cancer predictions for people who smoke, despite their own evidence that doesn't validate their antismoking biases! So, here, I choose to forgo the double-talk and take a serious look at a dreaded disease.

Causes

First, let's look at tobacco's complicity in causing cancer.

Life-span inhalation exposure to mainstream cigarette smoke induces lung cancer in B6C3F1 mice through genetic and epigenetic pathways by Julie A. Hutt, Brian R. Vuillemenot, Edward B. Barr, Marcie J. Grimes, Fletcher F. Hahn, Charles H. Hobbs, Thomas H. March, Andrew P. Gigliotti, Steven K. Seilkop 1, Gregory L. Finch 2, Joe L. Mauderly and Steven A. Belinsky (2005, Carcinogenesis, vol.26, no.11, p. 1999-2009)
NOTES: In the first paragraph, cigarette smoking is squarely blamed for lung cancer in the US. One of the excuses given for the rise in lung cancer in women is an increase in cigarette smoking, despite the obvious facts that antismoking campaigns have been rampant in the last few decades and the US has one of the lowest smoking rates (yet one of the highest lung cancer incidence rates) especially for women. The obvious comical observation is the blaming of cigarette smoking. You'd be an idiot to think that these rodents are actually smoking cigarettes! Look at the entire second paragraph:

Until recently, attempts at inducing lung cancer in animals using cigarette smoke (CS) have not been very successful. Increases in the incidence of lung tumor formation have been reported in A/J and SWR mice exposed to environmental or mainstream CS for 5 months, followed by recovery in air for 4 months (4–7). However, in two of these studies, CS exposure resulted in a significant decrease in malignant lung tumors compared with controls (4,5). In addition, exposure of A/J mice to mainstream CS for 6 h/day, 5 days a week for 26 weeks followed by recovery in air for 5 weeks did not increase lung tumor formation or promote nitrosamine-4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)-induced tumors (8). Until the recent report by Mauderly et al. (9) describing CS-induced lung and nasal tumors in rats, chronic CS inhalation studies in other rodents, dogs and non-human primates have generally not produced statistically significant increases in lung tumor formation (10–12).

According to the litany of studies cited, only the last citation supposedly induced lung cancer (and nasal tumors) in rats--and that Mauderly paper is discussed below with results that still don't support antismoking hypotheses. Now, go down to the Results section under the "survival" subheading; it's the second subheading in that section. Small subsection, isn't it? Probably because the results are somewhat embarrassing to the researchers.
Results/Survival quote:
At the end of the study (918–930 days) 19.9% of sham-exposed control mice were alive compared with 47.3% of CS-exposed mice (P < 0.001).
So, the mice exposed to cigarette smoke outlived the control mice. Period. But if we are to believe these results, then we are merely rationalizing a nicotine addiction? There are some antismokers who should be pretty red-faced right about now.

Chronic Inhalation Exposure to Mainstream Cigarette Smoke Increases Lung and Nasal Tumor Incidence in Rats by Joe L. Mauderly, Andrew P. Gigliotti, Edward B. Barr, William E. Bechtold, Steven A. Belinsk, Fletcher F. Hahn, Charles A. Hobbs, Thomas H. March, Steven K. Seilkop and Gregory L. Finch (2004, Toxicological Sciences, vol. 81, no. 2, p. 280-292).

NOTES: Look at the very first sentence in the Introduction, "Despite the decline in smoking in the United States, tobacco-related disorders contribute substantially to the burden of respiratory and nonrespiratory illness and disease". Yet, the researchers continue to assume that various respiratory and nonrespiratory disorders are tobacco-related! Again, this is a very antitobacco study; yet, the antitobacco hypotheses just don't hold true--and they know it but they continue with the assumption as though it's Gospel! The third paragraph in the Introduction begins, "The difficulty in reproducing in animals the obvious lung carcinogenicity of smoking in humans is a perplexing, longstanding toxicological dilemma. Coggins (1998, 2001, 2002) reviewed several chronic inhalation studies using rodents, dogs, and nonhuman primates, and concluded that no study has produced a statistically significant increase in lung tumors."The researchers declared "the obvious lung carcinogenicity of smoking" despite any substantiating proof and plenty of evidence to the contrary!

Now, go down to Methods & Materials and look at the second subheading, "Cigarette smoke exposures." This gives you an idea of what these antismokers put their experimental animals through. Quote:

Rats were exposed (whole-body) 6 h/day, 5 days/week to either mainstream cigarette smoke diluted to 250 (high smoke, "HS") or 100 (low smoke, "LS") mg TPM/m3 as described previously (Chen et al., 1992), or to HEPA-filtered air as controls (C). Rats were exposed at half the target concentrations for the first week for acclimation. After 6 weeks of smoke exposure, all groups were exposed to only HEPA-filtered air for 1 week to parallel the brief suspension of exposure accompanying groups not included in this report (Finch et al., 1998). Smoke exposures then resumed and continued for 30 months.

And, using the above to reference to understand the classifications in the Results, look at what all of this hoopla produced, Median (50%) survival times for the C [Control], LS [Low Smoking], and HS [high Smoking] groups were 752, 779, and 749 days, respectively, for males and 807, 845, and 766 days, respectively, for females. Survival of the HS females was significantly shortened compared to C females (p = 0.02), but survival of HS males was not significantly shortened. In contrast, survival of both males and females at the LS level was significantly lengthened compared to C groups (p = 0.01 for males, p = 0.003 for females). So, this study is touted in the Carcinogenesis study as the great turnaround in finally being able to prove that smoking causes lung cancer. Yet, the best this study could show was that Low Smokers outlived everybody and High smokers only lost a few days compared to the Control group! (However, females fared slightly worse.) THIS is the best that this entire team of antismoking researchers can do to incriminate smoking!

Notice the funding for this study, too, particularly on Animal Care. Well, they certainly took care of the Low smoking rats!
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS from Mauderly, et. al.:

This research was supported by the Offices of Defense Programs and Health and Environmental Research, U.S. Department of Energy, under Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC04-96AL76406, and by NIEHS ES08801. Research was conducted in facilities fully accredited by the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. The authors thank the numerous members of the Lovelace staff who made scientific, technical, and administrative contributions to the research. The many technical contributions of Ms. D. C. Esparza are especially acknowledged. The commitment by Dr. R. Rubin, President, of LRRI institutional funds to complete the analysis and publication of these results is greatly appreciated.

Research funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. LRRI is funded by multiple Federal and non-Federal sponsors, but does not accept funding from the tobacco industry.

We could continue for a short eternity going through the long list of antitobacco studies showing no results, low results or results contradicting the antitobacco hypotheses. However, we would be wiser to look at some other, more plausible, candidates for carcinogens.

According to The History of Cancer from the American Cancer Society (author's name not given), several viruses appear to be related to contracting cancer. (Interestingly, smoking is only mentioned twice in the introduction and tobacco is mentioned only a few times. Only a minor epidiemological suggestion is made.) Specifically,
- Long-standing liver infection with the hepatitis virus can lead to cancer of the liver.
- A variety of the herpes virus, the Epstein-Barr virus, causes infectious mononucleosis and has been implicated in non-Hodgkin's lymphomas and nasopharyngeal cancer.
- The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is associated with an increased risk of developing several cancers, especially Kaposi's Sarcoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
- Human papilloma viruses (HPVs) have been linked to cancers of the cervix, vulva, and penis.
Arsenic, Radiation, Genetics --From MEDICAL BIOLOGY: ON THE ETIOLOGY OF LUNG CANCER by H. Ahsan and D.C. Thomas (J. Am. Med. Assoc., 2004, 292:2026,
"Although 80% to 90% of lung cancer cases occur in current or past tobacco smokers, only a small fraction of smokers (1%-15%) develop lung cancer,[2]...Clearly, because all lung cancers do not occur in smokers and the vast majority of smokers do not develop lung cancer, other etiological factors can independently (in the absence of smoking) or jointly (in conjunction with smoking) cause lung cancer, beyond the purely stochastic nature of the disease process. These factors include genetics (measured as family history),[3.4] arsenic exposure,[5] radiation exposure, and other environmental carcinogens.[2] Although genetic factors probably contribute in all populations, the contribution of other factors is population-specific. For example, in all areas of the world lung cancer shows a modest level of familial aggregation,[2] whereas only in specific environmental, occupational, and therapeutic settings do arsenic and ionizing radiation contribute to lung cancer etiology.[2]"

WebMistress: Ya know, the really sad thing is that both doctors and people who smoke have a tendency to inflict MORE radiation on people who smoke with the assumption the additional exposure is NEEDED to find their expected lung cancer....even though "only a small fraction of smokers (1%-15%) develop lung cancer,[2]". Also notice that this research paper claims "Although 80% to 90% of lung cancer cases occur in current or past tobacco smokers." Yet, other experts claim that 90% of all lung cancers occur in smokers. They can't seem to decide on the percentage OR the smoking status! Why do we continue to fund these researchers and call them "experts"?
Simian Virus 40 -- Vaccine scandal revives cancer fear (New Scientist, July 2004):
It has been known since 1960 that early doses of polio vaccine were widely contaminated with simian virus 40, or SV40, which infects macaque monkeys. Tens of millions of people in the US and an unknown number in other countries, including the UK, Australia and the former Soviet Union, may have been exposed prior to 1963. The contamination occurred because the kidney cells the vaccine virus was grown in came from monkeys infected with SV40. Health officials say the problem was eliminated after 1963. Now Michele Carbone of Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago has announced results that suggest the Soviet polio vaccine was contaminated after 1963, possibly until the early 1980s. "Is there infectious virus? The short answer is, yes," Carbone told the Vaccine Cell Substrate Conference 2004 in Rockville, Maryland, last week.
...
Carbone, the first to publish evidence of a link between SV40 and the deadly lung cancer mesothelioma (New Scientist print edition, 21 May 1994), will not discuss his results further until they have been published.
SV-40, A Deadly Cure? by Geraldo Fuentes, View Zone:
Injected into research animals, the SV-40 virus causes brain and lung cancers....[Carbone] found SV-40 in 33% of the osteosarcoma bone cancers studied, in 40% of other bone cancers, and in 60% of the mesotheliomas lung cancers.
The Virus and the Vaccine authored by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher. Quoting from the interview:
Then in the mid-1990s, researchers from all over the world began to uncover evidence that SV40 is a human carcinogen and that it is now causing a variety of human cancers, including a very deadly type of lung cancer called mesothelioma, several types of bone and brain cancers, and a lymphatic cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.... For example, when the NIH scientist who first discovered SV40 caused cancer in hamsters announced her findings at a scientific conference in 1960, her superiors demoted her and took away her laboratory.
Rogue virus in the vaccine: Early polio vaccine harbored virus now feared to cause cancer in humans by William Carlsen (San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, July 15, 2001) More information about the simian virus SV40 from studies or scientific reviews published during that past year.
Diesel: -- Do diesels, not smoking, cause lung cancer? which includes a preface to Dr. Kitty Little's "Diesel smoke and lung cancer" (January, 1998). Little's article is very well-written.
Heavy Metals (from OSHA)
Asbestos -- Asbestos Linked to Mesothelioma from lawyersandsettlements-dot-com, more from Asbestos Network
Silica -- NIOSH HAZARD REVIEW: Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (CDC)
Cigarette Filters -- See the caveats at the bottom of the Smokers' Paradoxes page.

from www.epa.gov/radon
Radon: The Health Hazard with a Simple Solution
Radon is a cancer-causing natural radioactive gas that you can’t see, smell or taste. Its presence in your home can pose a danger to your family's health. Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in America and claims about 20,000 lives annually. Learn how you can protect your family

http://www.epa.gov/radon/rnpsa.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/radon/rnpsa.html
Heed The Surgeon General's Warning: Test Your Home
EPA has released a Public Service media campaign for radon. The campaign features the U.S. Surgeon General's warning that radon causes lung cancer and that you should test your home. These TV, radio and print PSA materials are available in English and Spanish. Learn more about EPA's radon public service media campaigns

Treatments

NOTE: This is not medical advice. This is very good advice.

The Cancer Tutor: The War Between Orthodox Medicine and alternative Medicine Thanks, tnsmoker!

Dietary Changes

All wheat, sugar and dairy, except for organic cottage cheese with flax oil. But be careful of sugar because sugars can feed tumors. No processed foods, chemically filled foods, artificial sweeteners/colors/flavoring
No vinegar canned foods. In fact, vinegar can increase acidity in the body; you want a more alkaline body with lots of oxygen. Cancer can’t survive in an oxygenated environment! (Rolls of Ph strips can be helpful for monitoring levels in the body.)
Good filtered water. Pure water is best for healing. Try Crystal Quest. (I know. Most of us go for the inexpensive, convenient Brita pitchers. However, when it really matters, you would do well to go for something a bit more intense--but still economical. Personally, I'm still not giving up my Brita!)
Essiac Tea--An absolute must! A good source is Bulk Essiac. Steer clear of premade concentrates because they usually lose potency.
Onion, Garlic and Pure Coconut Oil to add flavor and for good health.
As mentioned above, flax oil with organic cottage cheese is a popular cancer-fighter. This mixture is credited to the "Budwig Cancer Cure diet."

Supplements - Tailor to your personal needs!

B17 (or Laetrile) - (I know. It always reminds me of the Olivia Newton John song, too! LOL!) Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics recounts an interview of Ralph Moss on the Laura Lee radio show. Discusses Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's toxins, Burzynski and Cancer Politics. B17 is found in almonds but, to my knowledge, can't be sold in the US. (Many cancer patients go south to get it.)

Vitamin C - Clinical Procedures in Treating Terminally Ill Cancer Patients with Vitamin C by Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D. This man is actually a psychiatrist. He talks about how he came across the importance of vitamin C therapy because he was trying to assess its therapeutic effects on schizophrenics. He worked in a hospital and many of the patients to whom he had access aldo had cancer. (Note: He also mentions using Vitamin B3, which is a form of nicotine.) I know that some cancer patients have taken up to 33 grams--not milligrams--per day.

Heart Plus. Highly recommended in general and great for battling cancer. You can take a couple three times a day.

Collidal Silver Spray - (I've heard 30 ppm per day) - Attacks viral and bacterial infections.

Pure Aloe - (4 oz. per day?)

Oregano Oil - Attacks viral and bacterial infections. Has had some success in Israeli research testing against the West Nile virus as well!

Barley Greens - (can take 5 three times a day) - Promotes healing.

CoQ10 - Strengthens the heart, promotes healing and is known to fight cancer. A good general maintenance supplement as well! One good source is VitaCost. For cancer patients, 400 mg/day is a good start to finding out what dosage works best for you.

Triple Mushroom complex

Beta 1-3 Glucan

NOTE1: Be careful that you don't take things that cancel each other. For example, there is a derivative of the graviola plant that is supposed to be powerful in the fight against cancer; however, it can lessen the effect of CoQ10. Thus, the best case is to forgo the herb unless/until you really need something that strong and, in the meantime, let the CoQ10 and other supplements, dietary changes and detoxification work their magic for you.

NOTE2: A pill divider can be of great use--in fact, in addition to the little ones for weekly organization, I suggest a large one to help contain and organize the supplements.

No-No's

Steroids -- Block CoQ10, which is needed in the fight against cancer.
Statins -- Can atrophy muscles and your heart is a muscle that you need in the middle of a biological crisis! Also blocks CoQ10. (Also, from Statin Adverse Effects: Implications for the Elderly (Geriatric Times , May/June, 2004, Vol. V, Issue 3) by Beatrice A. Golomb, M.D., Ph.D. , "Of particular note for the elderly population, the PROSPER trial found a significant 25% increase in incident cancer in participants over age 70 randomized to statin therapy versus placebo (Shepherd et al., 2002). Because statins have been reported to cause cancer in animals, the significant increase in cancer cannot be dismissed as necessarily a fluke.")

More Tips

Warm soaks with Epsom salts are great for detoxifying and providing the body with much needed magnesium.
Read Bill Henderson's book, Cancer-Free: Your Guide to Gentle, Non-toxic Healing! He has also authored Cure Your Cancer: Your Guide to the Internet.
Detoxify your home - No harsh detergents and even Teflon products (pots'n'pans) can have a deleterious effect! Many people use vinegar and baking soda as cleaners--but cancer patients need to be a little leery of vinegar!
Try to avoid environmental hazards, such as diesel exhaust. (see above)
Go for organic foods--and even raw milk--when possible. Usually, a good Farmer's Market is a God-send.

Return to Main Page
Return to Previous Page