Here is a relatively simple way to significant reduce the probability of developing breast cancer....... http://www.canadasilentnomore.com/a...east-cancer-link-to-abortion-is-significant!/
The link is to someone hawking a book to prolifers who is urging teenage girls to have babies to avoid breast cancer. This has been studied and has been debunked. In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings can be found below in the Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop. The factors known to increase a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer include age (a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer increase as she gets older), a family history of breast cancer, an early age at first menstrual period, a late age at menopause, a late age at the time of birth of her first full-term baby, and certain breast conditions. Obesity is also a risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women. https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk (National Cancer Institute) One of the most highly regarded studies on abortion and breast cancer was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997. This study of 1.5 million women found no overall connection between the two (Melbye et al., 1997). This study benefited from its size — 1.5 million women — and by linking data from the National Registry of Induced Abortions and the Danish Cancer Registry, thereby avoiding one of the pitfalls observed in some case-control studies — that women with breast cancer were more likely to recall having had an abortion than women without breast cancer, particularly because abortion had been illegal (Brody, 1997; Westhoff, 1997). An accompanying editorial on the results of the study led the writer to conclude that, “in short, a woman need not worry about the risk of breast cancer when facing the difficult decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy” (Hartge, 1997). Another large cohort study was done in Sweden. It followed, for as long as 20 years beginning in 1966, 49,000 women who had abortions before the age of 30. Not only did the study show no indication of an overall risk of breast cancer after an abortion in the first trimester, but it also suggested that there could well be a slightly reduced risk. Among women who had given birth prior to an abortion, the relative risk* for breast cancer was 0.58; for those who had never given birth, the relative risk was 1.09; for the total sample, the relative risk was 0.77 (Lindefors Harris et al., 1989). https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/9613/9611/5578/Myths_About_Abortion_and_Breast_Cancer.pdf
Other studies seem to disagree with this analysis. http://www.canadasilentnomore.com/m...report-on-the-breast-cancer-link-to-abortion/ .....
The Dr. Ben Carson response to his own case of prostate cancer should be researched before taking drastic actions like that. Why would Dr. Ben Carson make such claims? ....notice post #7 for a copy of an article on Dr. Ben Carson's nutritional back up for his own treatment.
I'm pretty sure that the Laetrile treatment has been discredited. Laetrile is a compound that has been used as a treatment for people with cancer worldwide. It is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a treatment for cancer or any other medical condition. The term laetrile comes from 2 words (laevorotatory and mandelonitrile) and is used to describe a purified form of the chemical amygdalin. Amygdalin is a plant compound that contains sugar and produces hydrogen cyanide. Hydrogen cyanide is thought to be the main anticancer compound formed from laetrile when broken down in the body. Amygdalin is found in the pits of many fruits and in raw nuts. It is also found in other plants such as lima beans, clover, and sorghum.
True...... but there are some rather simple natural compound that are showing promise for far more than one type of cancer. Here is another one from a webpage that is a summary of a book that I read back in 1999. http://www.msm-info.com/#Cancer This stuff is low cost..... is plant based.... cannot be patented..... and so physicians have little financial incentive to tell their patients what it can do for them.
Dennis, I would need a lot more data on this before I could consider it. I would need a medical history to start with. Anecdotes like after 4 months my diabetes, peripheral neuropathy etc improved, are not valid data.
Great post...... but there is another side to this..... https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/apricot-kernels-for-cancer/
The company is doing a lot of research on it in Kenya..... it is showing promise even on HIV. Glyconutrients Offer Real Hope in Battle Against HIV, According to African Leaders
Methyl Suphonyl Methand is a natural substance..... and therefore cannot be patented....... Those eight glyco-nutrients that I also mentioned cannot be patented in their pure form but the company that is testing them has obtained a patent on various products that combine two or more of the nutritional sugars.
Here is a link to the book on MSM that I did read back in 1999. Every single claim that the author made sure seems to have been valid in my own experience of using it for 17 years. My wife and a number of friends had the same impressive results. https://www.amazon.ca/Miracle-MSM-Natural-Solution-Pain/dp/0425172651
You might like this better...... http://www.glyconutrientsreference.com/whoneedsglyconutrients/medicalconditions/aidsandhiv.html
Glyconutritional supplementation may prevent the HIV attachment."May" What are you doing to get rid of the primary? You are feeding it in the meantime while preventing the metastasis, and when will it stop growing? When it has overwhelmed the host completely.
I saw a video interview by the late Rayburn Goen M. D. on Glyconutirional supplementation and he obviously felt that the ability of those eight nutritional sugars to assist in communication from cell to cell was a major reason why it had such dramatic results on so many different types of conditions.
