Five Ways To Prevent Cancer

It's always one camp or another - seriously, I don't see why people can't integrate their health care with both. I know I do.

FreeSpeaker - I am with you 100%, but I feel this site is a waste. 90% of the articles are alternahealth or naturopathy nonsense. The remaining 10% is either content free or just wrong. I've given up.

Oh really? Thimerosal cannot be dangerous for one function and not dangerous for another. But of course we know that none of the chemicals etc are dangerous in vaccines because vaccines are perfect :)

I could say that your mind is made up too. You don't listen to anyone else's opinion if they don't agree with your viewpoint, which of course is your choice.

If thimerosal is so safe, what about this?

Thimerosal, an ethyl mercury compound, is used worldwide as a vaccine preservative. We previously observed that the mercury concentration in mouse brains did not increase with the clinical dose of thimerosal injection, but the concentration increased in the brain after the injection of thimerosal with lipopolysaccharide, even if a low dose of thimerosal was administered. Thimerosal may penetrate the brain, but is undetectable when a clinical dose of thimerosal is injected;

In conclusion, MT-1 and MT-3 mRNAs but not MT-2 mRNA are easily expressed in the cerebellum rather than in the cerebrum by the injection of low-dose thimerosal. It is thought that the cerebellum is a sensitive organ against thimerosal. As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.

Source: Induction of metallothionein in mouse cerebellum and cerebrum with low-dose thimerosal injection, Cell Biology and Toxicology, 0742-2091 (Print) 1573-6822 (Online), 9 April 2009.

Thimerosal is a mercurial preservative that was widely used in vaccines in the United States and Europe until 2001. By 1999, expanding recommendations for infant vaccinations indicated that United States children who received a complete series of vaccines that contained thimerosal received up to 187.5 μg of ethyl mercury during the first six months of life. This cumulative exposure could exceed the United States Environmental Protection Agency's recommended safe intake level, estimated in 1997, to be no more than 0.1 μg of mercury per kilogram of body weight per day. This observation lead to a recommendation by the American Academy of Pediatrics that thimerosal is removed to all vaccines that are administered to infants in the United States. Realizing the potential dangers of thimerosal in vaccines, six states have enacted legislations that have limited the amount of thimerosal that can be used in vaccines in their States (Iowa, California, New York, Missouri, Delaware and Washington). In 1987, Congress established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to provide compensation to family of individuals who suffer injuries from vaccines. Until recently, these judgments have been paid only to families of non-autistic children who received complications due to the vaccines. In 2008, the Government conceded its first vaccine-autism case in Federal Court. Scientific studies of this autistic child suggested that the autism was related to a mitochondrial disorder. The Federal Government should enact legislation that prohibits the use of thimerosal in vaccines given to pregnant women and their infants.

Sources: Journal of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Volume 4, Number 3 / 2009.

Just why do they want to reduce exposure and why do they realise the potiential dangers of thimerosal in vaccines if it's safe? This was only last year.

Universal newborn immunization with hepatitis
B vaccine was recommended in 1991; however, safety
findings are mixed. The Vaccine Safety Datalink Workgroup reported no association between hepatitis B vaccination at birth and febrile episodes or neurological adverse
events. Other studies found positive hepatitis B vaccination and ear infection, pharyngitis, and
chronic arthritis; as well as receipt of early intervention/special education services (EIS); in probability samples of U.S. children. Children with autistic spectrum disorder(ASD) comprise a growing caseload for EIS. We evaluated
the association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of ASD.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study used U.S. probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997–2002 datasets. Logistic regression modeling was used to estimate the effect of neonatal hepatitis B vaccination on
ASDrisk amongboys age 3–17 years with shot records, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household.

RESULTS:Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD (nZ31 of 7,486; OR Z 2.94; p Z 0.03; 95% CI Z 1.10, 7.90)compared to later- or unvaccinated boys.Non-Hispanic white
boys were 61% less likely to have ASD(ORZ0.39; pZ0.04;95% CIZ0.16, 0.94) relative to non-white boys.

CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.

Source: Annals of Epidemiology, vol.19, no. 9, September 2009: 651-680.

And this one from 1976 says vaccines are recognised as a starter function for autism!

[Autistic syndrome (Kanner) and vaccination against smallpox (author's
transl)]

[Article in German]

Eggers C.

3-4 weeks following an otherwise uncomplicated first vaccination against
smallpox a boy, then aged 15 months and last seen at the age of 5 1/2 years,
gradually developed a complete Kanner syndrome. The question whether
vaccination and early infantile autism might be connected is being
discussed. A causal relationship is considered extremely unlikely. But
vaccination is recognized as having a starter function for the onset of
autism.
PMID: 944354

Source: Klin Padiatr. 1976 Mar;188(2):172- 80

It's not new - they have known thimerosal is harmful for decades and it isn't anything to do with Andrew Wakefield. This concern has been around a great deal longer than him.

As for the comments about my genes, that has nothing to do with it. My mother was a nurse who believed in vaccination (except for the flu one which gave her flu). Why do extreme pro vaccine people always have to reduce the argument personal remarks? You lose credibility that way. I don't think there's anything wrong with you, you are entitled to your opinion.

I did not write that tiny quantities of thimerosal - the same type of mercury found in vaccines - was lethal in small amounts, Merck wrote it in their own document which I already posted further up this discussion:

http://www.vce.org/mercury/thimerosal-usp.pdf

This data sheet on thimerosal states:

HAZARD SYMBOL T+ (VERY TOXIC). Criteria: Inhalation, swallowing or absorbtion through the skin in very small amounts can cause considerable damage to health and may sometimes be lethal.

I suggest you read this:

http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/mercinmed.pdf

This is a US Congress report which says:

"Mercury is hazardous to humans. It's use in medicinal products is undesirable, unnecessary and should be minimized or eliminated entirely."

Manufacturers of vaccines and thimerosal have never conducted adequate on the safety of thimerosal. The FDA have never required manufacturers to conduct adequate safety testing on thimerosal.

Aluminium in vaccines has been found to cause muscle paralysis, weakness and muscle pain - the French accidently discovered this when taking biopsies of the patients affected arms and finding aluminium shards in them.

This condition is called macrophagic myofascitas or inflammatory myopathy and only occurs in vaccinated people who have been vaccinated with injections containing aluminium hydroxide:

Macrophagic myofascitis lesions assess long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminium hydroxide in muscle. Brain, vol.124, no.9, 1821-1831, September 2001.

If it were of no consequence to human health, it would not be causing this debilitating muscle disease and chronic fatigue. The US did further research on this in 2002 and found the same.

I don't think I use emotional ploys - all the documents and studies I have read on the subject are official and from medical sources. I would say that those staunchly in favour of vaccines, use emotional ploys. They frequently talk about how children are all going to die of diseases if we don't vaccinate. I got a letter from the doctor the other day, advertising his vaccine clinic and he wrote that serious side-effects and encephalitis occur 1 in 15 cases of measles, which is factually incorrect - that is actually the number of children who get ear infections afterwards. It also said 'MEASLES KILLS' in big letters, designed to frighten me. I've seen advertising for vaccines on TV where they showed a baby about to crawl off the edge of a cliff and there was a lion circling around it, and the voice over said
'Why take a chance with childhood diseases? Protect your baby now!'

If that isn't a blatent emotional ploy, I don't know what is. I only deal with factual documents and it is usually extreme pro-vaccine people who become emotional because of that.

If all your students have to reach the same conclusions in order to pass in your class, I would rather fail. School is supposed to encourage freedom of thought and creative thinking and objectiveness and the ability to question. If all it now does is train impressionable young minds to accept the status quo and only follow popular thinking, then it is breeding a society of sheep.

It is the reason why adequate research will never be done - because reputable doctors and scientists are too scared of losing their careers.

Our exam board in the UK recently put a question in their science paper about Andrew Wakefield's research and in order to get the question right, the student would have to agree that his research was found to be false - which is untrue as continuing research is still going on.

The board eventually apologised to the public and removed the exam paper question, but it illustrates my point that in order to succeed you have to agree with the popular viewpoint even if there is evidence to the contrary, and this is not science.

I would rather fail your class and still have the benefit of my own mind.

I have to agree with FreeThinker on several points, not everything of course, but most. He(or she) is using the scientific method and trying to use some level of precision in language use. The blog owner, JKP, bounces between emotional response and logical responses and uses imprecise language.

The mercury and aluminum comments are perfect examples. SOME chemical compounds containing these elements are toxic, while others are harmless. It is not the presence of these elements that are toxic, it is the ability of the compounds that contain these elements to undergo chemical reactions in the body that produce the toxic effects. FreeThinkers comment about sodium chloride is on the mark. Elemental sodium is highly reactive and flammable. Dropping it into water can cause an explosion (given even a small amount of sodium). Elemental chlorine is toxic because it can be freely converted to hydrogen chloride which when dissolved in water creates hydrochloric acid and there is enough water in the air to dissolve gaseous HCl. Yet combined as sodium chloride, the average American ingests more than 2 grams daily, it is essential for human life; but in large quantities in can cause hypertension (a leading killer of Americans).

The point.... don't say mercury is bad... or alumnim. Say mercury in quantities greater than __________ is reported to cause ____________ in _____________. Let the reader make the conclusion from FACTS, not emotional plays.

Professor BabyBoomer

PS If my undergraduates wrote as illogically as this blog post, they would fail.

Absolutely.

Thank you all for your opposing opinions.

While it's healthy to express contrarian views, let's just remember to be respectful of each other's views and agree to disagree without attacking each other's integrity or position.

I think we need to accept that no two people are alike, therefore we'll all respond to treatment, alternative or "conventional," differently.

I disagree about no alternative therapy being useful for cancer. I have heard success stories of curing cancer with vitamins, diet and even positive thought. Louise Hay, for instance, had vaginal cancer and she cured herself with positive visualisation even though doctors told her she was too advanced to treat. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the mind and immune system are connected.
I was on a TV program where this man cured himself of prostate cancer by drinking breast milk daily (2 smoothies with donated breast milk in). He was told he could only have surgery, chemo etc and he thought he'd try mother's milk instead and it worked because he is now cancer free.
The article I wrote about cranberries making chemotherapy work faster is another example of an 'alternative' therapy, and it shows how you can combine both, if you want to.

Alternative therapies aren't 'bogus'. It is true that there may be some that don't work, but the fact is, a lot of conventional medicine doesn't work either. My own father had chemo, radiotherapy etc for bladder cancer. He went down within weeks of having it and died. The worst thing was, he was a singer. He had the most beautiful voice you can imagine, and the chemo took his voice. I know he was doing the only thing he knew what to do, but the chemo destroyed his immune system and he missed my wedding, never got to see any of his grandchildren.

My uncle by marriage went the same way, and my grandmother and my step-grandfather and a friend of mine is currently having radiotherapy and says he is dying.

I successfully stopped my recurrent colds and flu that were happening every month when I started taking vitamin C and eating organic food.

I stopped my once a month migraines by drinking peppermint tea and have never had one since even though I had them all the time since the age of 11.

I stopped my chronic back pain with aromatherapy massage. One massage and the pain goes away for 6 months, and I sleep like a baby for 3 hours afterwards. When I went to the doctor about it, he just told me to take painkillers and when I asked him to refer me to an osteopath, he said
'Backs are delicate, you shouldn't mess around with them.' So now I just get my massage twice a year and I'm okay.

I ripped my fingernail off in a cupboard door once and took all the usual painkillers for it which didn't help, then after a couple of days of pain I took arnica homeopathy that my husband brought for me. I thought, 'what a load of rubbish, this'll never work', but it did. It took the sting away. I have it for myself and my kids bumps and bruises now. It's great.

I used a TENS machine and nothing else for childbirth and that worked wonderfully. I had a 9lbs baby last time with virtually no pain because of the TENS machine, and that is 'alternative therapy'. Cabbage leaves for mastitis, now that one works great.

My lovely gynecologist told me to get acupuncture for a female problem I have. They even have one in the hospital pain clinic. I haven't yet, but am going to. At the same time, I have taken conventional meds he has given me.
That's what I mean, I don't see why it has to be one or the other, and I think it's a shame you won't try some of this, it has helped me.

Thalidomide was used in the UK where I am from and lots of people were born with no arms and legs. It might be used for something different now but there's still loads of disabled people out there because doctor's thought they could meddle with pregnancy.

Scientists may have proven that smoking causes cancer, but when the subject first arose, there were also studies saying that smoking didn't cause cancer. Rather like the ping pong effect we are seeing with MMR.

The reason they used to do blood letting was because they thought that illness was caused by evil spirits and to release blood would release the spirit. They continued thinking this until the late 19th century - respected doctors that people trusted.

Vioxx was causing heart attacks in the trials and they had concerns but did nothing. The FDA may have taken it off the market, but it shouldn't have been put on the market until it had been properly tested.

Scientists may have come up with the 'back to sleep' campaign for babies, but similar scientists told mothers to put their babies in the recovery position when my mother had me, and that was scientific advice at the time. My mother even showed me how to put my dolls in the recovery position when I put them in my toy crib.

It's the same situation with children's cough and cold medicines. She gave them to me when I was little, now our government said they shouldn't be given to children under 6 because of deaths associated with it. I picked up a leaflet from my pharmacy about it, advising parents to give their kids honey and lemon drinks instead.

What do you mean, 'that was years ago'? It doesn't matter how many years ago it was. The point is, she was told that the measles vaccine introduced in 1968 would prevent measles and was safe and effective. She gave it to me. Now they say it isn't effective and that's why they don't want parents to get single jabs, and they say it makes you get atypical measles. So they've totally changed their advice as well as apparently injecting me with something dangerous and ineffective (I am too old to have had MMR).

As for cancer and vaccines, the citations are from medical journals and are case studies of cancer from smallpox vaccine site, except for the mouse one, which is an animal study using smallpox vaccine to produce cancer in animals. People who are very pro conventional medicine usually love animal studies so I thought I'd include that one.

Of course there's not going to be epidemiological studies on it because the manufacturer's of the vaccines all say in their data sheets that they haven't tested them for carcinogenic ability, which is what I was saying in the article! There aren't going to be any of those sorts of studies if they haven't done them! It doesn't mean that vaccines don't cause cancer, just that they haven't studied it. Absence of data doesn't = safety, it just means the research hasn't been done.