The Ineffectiveness of Current Cancer Cures

February 27, 2011 Leave a comment

An article titled “Cancer Cure Search Detoured by Reality of Resilient Disease” appeared in the ‘Houston Chronicle’ in July, 2003. In it, writer Daniel G. Haney was courageous enough to state the actual state of affairs regarding the “War Against Cancer”. In it he brought out important, little-acknowledged facts concerning the current dismaying “prognosis” for a cure for cancer.

“Not long ago, the defeat of cancer seemed inevitable… no more chemotherapy, the thinking went. No more horrid side effects… Some now wonder whether malignancy will ever be reliably and predictably cured.

“The dearth of substantial impact so far suggests the fight against cancer wil continue to be a tedious slog, and victories will be scored in weeks or months of extra life, not years.

“… Several [drugs] have made it through testing, but despite their apparent bull’s-eye hits, lasting results are rare. Instead, these new drugs turn out to be about as effective – or as powerless – as old-line chemotherapy [ineffective long-term]. Aimed at the major forms of cancer, they work spectacularly for a lucky few and modestly for some. But for most? NOT AT ALL.

“… ‘It’s a much more complicated problem than anyone ever appreciated’, says Dr. Leonard Saltz, a colon cancer expert at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. ‘It will, unfortunately, be with us for a long time.’

“… scientists are even rethinking the goal of cancer research.

“”‘Society as a whole, and most of the medical profession, have a wrong understanding we’ll wake up one morning and find out cancer is cured. It won’t happen. The public should give it up,’ says Dr. Craig henderson, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and president of Access Oncology, a drug developer…’

*****

This was reported back in 2003. Nothing has changed since then.

For those of you who subscribe to the Medscape Today newsletter or visit the website and read the medical news on a daily basis (which you can get at http://www.medscape.com/medscapetoday), you will know that even though nearly 10 years have passed since the above information was published, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The FDA continues to allow Big Pharma to register their “blockbuster cancer drugs”, based on “potentially phenomenal results” (using weasel words like ‘may’, ‘possibly’, ‘have the potential to perhaps’, etc.), only to request further clinical trials due to ‘insufficient data’ showing the actual positive benefits compared to current cancer drugs already established in the market, or pull them all together due to their ineffectiveness.

You can read more on this at www.brianpeskin.com or order “The Hidden Story of Cancer” today.

Newsflash 2008: Case Closed, Closed, Closed…IT is NOT Genetic

February 8, 2011 2 comments

The Special Edition of Scientific American (Vol. 18, No. 3, August/September 2008) devoted the entire issue to cancer. Many of the articles repeated the previous nonsense we hear time and time again that leads nowhere. However, the article “Untangling the Roots of Cancer,” by W. Wayt Gibbs, was excellent in presenting the truth, starting with the failure of the “oncogene theory.”

• “But the oncogene/tumor suppressor gene hypothesis has also failed, despite three decades of effort, to identify a particular set of gene mutations that occurs in every instance of any of the most common and deadly kinds of human cancer.”

The article then details how geneticist Lawrence A. Loeb led cancer researchers astray with the silly notion that your cells are capable of having 10,000-100,000 mutations each.

• “For many years, he suggested that ‘early during the genesis of cancer there are enormous numbers of random mutations—10,000-100,000 per cell,’ but he had little evidence to support the idea.“ (Emphasis added.)

In 2006, researchers actually measured the number of mutations and it was a mere “65-475 mutations per 100 million nucleotides.” [Note: This is .000475% – .000065%—next to nothing.]

◗ Life-Systems Engineering Science Commentary

The number of misleading researchers in the medical sciences never ceases to amaze me, nor how they completely throw all the researchers off track. This type of behavior simply doesn’t occur in sciences like physics or engineering, where scientific standards are much higher. Witness the contrast in results — amazing advances in technology every few years. Contrast this with thirty (30) wasted years of cancer researchers looking in completely the wrong “genetic-based” direction for cancer’s source and cure. Are we doomed to another 30 wasted years before researchers get it right and discover Dr. Warburg?

Read more in “Good News: It’s NOT Genetic” on http://www.brianpeskin.com

The Magic of Pharmaceutical Statistical Butchering

February 6, 2011 1 comment

Many physicians are misled because they have no idea the pharmaceutical companies are allowed to manipulate statistics. Pharmaceutical companies shockingly, yet legally, get to remove the sample size. Again, when is one patient event in a million (drug) compared to two patient events in a million (placebo) equal to 50% improvement instead of the statistically correct 1 in 1,000,000 or 0.0001%? Answer: with the fanciful “pharmaceutical endpoint method,”also termed “relative risk,” as Professor of Medicine Stanton Glantz so aptly put in his book. (Glantz SA. Primer of Biostatistics. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2002, 149-156.)

Learn more by downloading “Relative Risk – Absolue Deception, Why Studies are Misleading” from www.brianpeskin.com, today.

Categories: Uncategorized

Passing of Genes During Cell Division

When scientists speak of “cancer genes” and diseases being passed along via genetics, they also commonly refer to another means of passing genetic traits: the process within one single organism or human body in which genes are duplicated and passed to a new cell during cell division. Scientists speak of the possibility that a gene mutation in one cell may then be passed along when the cell divides, and spread a disease throughout the body.

But many scientists and researchers believe that, despite the massive hype that has been put forth to persuade the public that genetic answers to disease are just around the corner, trying to cure cancer or other serious diseases via genetics is still so far off in terms of what we understand about how genes “work,” that it is wasted effort.

See more at www.brianpeskin.com “Good News: It’s Not Genetic”.

They DID Track Cancer in the 1900s

Genetic manipulation has been the buzz for years now. We hear almost daily about the Human Genome Mapping project and how mapping the sequence of all the human genes is supposed to help us find “disease genes”and lead to the cause and cure for many diseases.

But let’s backtrack for a moment. Few doctors or researchers acknowledge that in the early 1900s there was an overall extremely low level of cancer in this country. Don’t believe anyone who says there was just as much cancer then as now, but it just wasn’t tracked. Physicians and the medical journals did track cancer rates at that time, and so did our government. One hundred years ago, only about 3% of us developed cancer! Yet cancer has skyrocketed to a current staggering 50% of the population today.

For cancer or other diseases to be caused genetically by the passing of genetic mutations from one generation to the next, one or more of our genes would have had to mutate into “cancer (or other disease) genes” and be passed along from generation to generation through reproduction.

But there simply hasn’t been enough time for a “genetic mutation” to be passed to 50% of the population. A genetic mutation would take, at the least, many hundreds of years to become significant. So the likelihood of any type of genetic-based component, such as a mutation, reaching 50% of all Americans in 2003, when it was only 3% in 1900, is almost nonexistent.

Read more by downloading my report, “Good News: It’s Not Genetic” from http://www.brianpeskin.com, today

Newsflash: More Fish Oil Fodder

“Contrary to popular belief, fish oil is scientifically proven only to cause pharmacological overdoses to blood plasma DHA/EPA levels. IF these overdoses were anything good, one would certainly see the supposed positive enhanced “brain effects” and positive cardiovascular/anti-cancer effects were quickly. This October 2010 Wall Street Journal article shows fish oil failure once again…..pregnant women should not consume fish oil unless they wish a caesarean section. Again, would a proper nutritional supplement be excellent for both mom-to-be and baby-to-be? Of course, it should. Fish oil is out once again…..”

1)  http://topics.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702303550904575562053166893846.html 

 By SHIRLEY S. WANG

 Fish-oil supplements don’t appear to help pregnant women prevent post-partum depression or boost the baby’s brain development as previously believed, according to a large trial published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The 2,400-woman, randomized study complicates the advice for pregnant women. It adds to a body of mixed research on some potential benefits of the popular omega-3 fatty acid known as DHA, or docosahexaenoic acid. DHA, which can move from the mother to the baby during pregnancy, accumulates in the brain and is thought to be involved in helping brain cells communicate.

In general, for healthy women with normal pregnancies, “[DHA] supplementation will actually not give you a huge benefit in terms of neurodevelopmental outcomes and reducing depressive symptoms,” said Maria Makrides, an author on the study and deputy director of the Women’s and Children’s Health Research Institute in North Adelaide, Australia.

The results are “disappointing,” said Emily Oken, a professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, who wrote an editorial to accompany the paper but wasn’t involved in the study. But “it doesn’t mean we should give up on fish or fish oil during pregnancy,” she said.

Several previous studies have shown that eating fish during pregnancy helped in the baby’s brain development and in reducing the risk of post-partum depression. That research, however, typically didn’t involve randomized, controlled studies. Instead, women were asked whether or not they chose to eat fish during pregnancy.

It could be the case that eating fish is better than taking fish-oil supplements or that women who opt to eat fish are generally healthier and engage in other health-promoting behaviors, Dr. Oken said. The few trials conducted that separated participants, into a group taking fish-oil supplements and another that didn’t, weren’t well done, because the women often knew if they were getting the supplement, and in some cases there wasn’t a comparison group at all, she said.

The latest study does suggest that some subgroups of women might benefit from fish-oil supplements. For instance, those with a history of clinical depression—and thus are at higher risk of post-partum depression—who took 800 milligrams [bp NOTE: still a tremendous amount and results would show ….IF it worked, that is] of fish oil daily lowered their risk of getting depressed after the birth by about 4% compared with those who didn’t take fish oil.

However, the difference wasn’t statistically significant [bp NOTE: that is WRONG —  IF it really worked only a small number are needed!] because of the small number of women in the study who had been previously depressed, said Dr. Makrides, who is also a professor of human nutrition at the University of Adelaide.

Women in the fish-oil group had lower rates of pre-term births, particularly births earlier than 34 weeks of gestation. But, there was a trade-off: More women who took the supplement needed their labor to be induced or had caesarean sections because the babies stayed in the womb longer,[bp NOTE: an awful effect!]  said Dr. Makrides.

Additional research is needed to study the benefits of targeting DHA supplements to women with a history of depression or who previously had a premature baby, according to Dr. Makrides. However, all pregnant women should strive for balance [bp NOTE: weasel words] and eat a variety of foods, including fish, she said.

Omega-3 fatty acids are the fourth most common supplement after multivitamins, calcium and vitamin C, according to the Council for Responsible Nutrition, an industry trade group.

Other health benefits have been attributed to omega-3s. Research suggests they lower triglyceride fat levels [bp NOTE: irrelevant!] and are likely helpful [bp NOTE: great wording…. more weasel words] in preventing heart disease, according to the National Institutes of Health. There is some evidence [bp NOTE: i have some evidence that gravity pulls you UP….., too.]  omega-3s also may help decrease blood pressure, improve thinking in kids with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, help with weight loss and reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. Fish oil doesn’t seem to help lower blood sugar for diabetics, however, and there isn’t enough research to conclude effectiveness for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, irregular heart beat and cancer, according to the NIH. [bp NOTE: jesus….help all the poor misled people ……]

Parent to Derivative EFA Ratios – The conversion is MUCH LESS than Everyone States

The major metabolic route of ALA (parent omega-3) in the body is beta-oxidation. This means that parent omega-3 is mainly burned for energy – not incorporated into cellular structure or used for derivatives – your body requires very little and will attempt to remove an excess if it can. ONLY VERY LITTLE PARENT OMEGA-3 IS REQUIRED FOR PROPER CELL MEMBRANE STRUCTURE. However, if you are “overdosing” from supplements, based on incorrect advice [which is MOST of the current advice on the market], the excess will be forced into the cell structure as the “Lipids 2000” medical journal states:

“Linoleic acid (LA parent omega-6 FA) accumulates throughout the body of most mammals, whereas alpha-linolenic acid [ALA parent omega-3] is rarely found in those tissues to the same extent as LA”, “Increased alpha-linolenic acid [parent omega-3] intake increases tissue alpha-linolenic content [parent omega-3]” (Lipids 2000 Apr; 35(4):395-400.

This will NEGATIVELY IMPACT your cancer defense.

ALA accumultes in specific sites in the body of mammals, and only a small portion of dietary ALA is converted to DHA (Sinclair, A.J., et al., “What is the role of alpha-linolenic acid for mammals,” Lipids 2002 Dec;37(12):113-23).

The next piece of shocking information is from the “PUFA Newsletter”. “Alpha-Linolenic Acid Conversion Revisted” by Norman Salem et al., states,

“A recent article in the PUFA [Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid] Newsletter indicated that in adult men and women the ‘average estimated conversion of … alpha-linolenic acid to n-3-LC-PUFA metabolites and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA] was 17.3 +/- 12.8 and 3.6 +/- 3.8 percent, respectively (mean + SD)’. This is likely to be an OVERESTIMATE of the actual overall conversion rates for several reasons. We see even with this excessive estimate of the parent omega-3 derivative conersion that theoretically no more than 37% of them are converted to derivatives.”

The article makes the case that in reality only about 5% of the parent ALA [omega-]) is converted into derivatives. Pawlosky and others calculate that less than a mere 1% goes to derivatives. The article ends with, “The best estimates of alpha-linolenic acid conversion to n-3 LC-PUFA are much smaller than those claimed…”

Omega-6 conversion is also overstated:

“… Linking LA and AA in this way also implies a direct conversion of LA [parent omega-6] to AA [omega-6 derivative] which is not the case. In fact, a very high dietary LA will reduce membrane AA [the opposite effect!].” Note: This is why it was reported in the article by S. Bunting, s. Moncada, and J.R. Vane, titled “Prostacyclin – Thromboxane A2 Balance: Pathophysiological and Terapeutic Implications,” ‘British Medical Journal’, (1983)Vo.39, No.3, pages 271-276, that “AA in the phospholipids of Eskimo [consuming lots of parent omega-6] is approximately ONE-THIRD of that in Danes.”

The above quote was taken from Crawford, M.A., “Commentary on the workshop statement. Essentiality of and recommended dietary intakes for Omega-6 and Omega-3 fatty acids,” in ‘Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty acids 2000 Sep;63(3):131-4.

Here is the takehome to all the science above:

TOO MUCH OMEGA-3, OMEGA DERIVATIVES, OR DEFECTIVE EFAS RUIN THE CELL MEMBRANE STRUCTURE AND MINIMIZE YOUR LEVEL OF ANTICANCER PROTECTION.

Remember your goal is to MAXIMIZE the cell membrane structure so that the cells can remain fully oxygenated (cellular oxygenation), thus preventing a drop in cellular oxygenation of 30% which is the threshhold that Dr. Otto Warburg showed over and over again that healthy cells convert to cancer cells and cannot be reconverted.

So… when you are supplementing with Parent Essential Oils, PLEASE be sure you find a blend with the PROPER balance of Omega-6 and Omega-3 (2.5:1 to 1:1) or you could inevitably be negatively affecting your health and cancer prevention.

You can read more about this in much more detail in my book, “The Hidden Story of Cancer”, which can be ordered through the following website: http://www.brianpeskin.com.