F.A.C.T. – Just the Facts (for Townsend Newsletter – AUG 2014 issue)
There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether to change the names of certain types of cancer-related conditions, to ease people’s fears about following less aggressive therapies. Thus patients hearing the word CANCER are too inclined to undertake needless aggressive treatment including surgery, chemo, and/or radiation.
Officials at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) state that over diagnosis of cancer is a “major public health concern and a priority of the agency”. The agency director, Dr. Harold Varmus, says that many findings on mammography, PSA tests and other cancer screens are not always malignancies, in the classical sense that it will kill you. But as soon as some hear the word ‘cancer’ they fear the worst, and immediately think of surgery and chemo or radiation, when they might not even need it.
It’s a tough situation, knowing when to use the most aggressive forms of treatment, as Dr. Norton, Medical Director at Sloan Kettering says, many doctors opt for the more aggressive therapies because they cannot tell patients with certainty which cancers are slow growing, which will or will not progress, and which cancers will kill them. One of the most over-diagnosed conditions that often results in surgery is ‘ductal carcinoma in situ’, but according to Dr. Esserman, Professor at UCSF, it’s not even a “cancer”, so why are we calling it that?
If we change the name, or simply remove the word cancer from a diagnosis, as was done in the past with early stage urinary tract lesions renamed “papillary urothelialneoplasia of low malignant potential”, or when in the past a particular change on pap smears was reclassified to a “low grade lesion”, people are not as frightened and they are more willing to submit to observation or watchful waiting.
I strongly believe that early cancer screening tests are an invaluable tool in fight to eliminate cancer. But some strong voices are calling for less screening, and I believe that they are right if we fail to adopt the current research that clearly proves that CANCER IS A METABOLIC DISEASE, as the book by Thomas Seyfried, PhD reveals. If you choose to review his text and carefully consider the hundreds of references he supplies, I believe many will agree with me that we need to change our approach to treating cancer. Doing so will largely eliminate the stress and fear that the word has engendered in the public.
People will soon realize that it is nonsense to spend $100,000 or more just to “live” an additional month. I can assure you that in my 56 years of practice, virtually any unapproved cancer treatment anywhere can beat the results big Pharma is gouging the American public with their “approved” cancer treatments. If people were aware of the fact that if you already have metastatic cancer by the time you become concerned enough to consult a physician, and are in an ‘approved’ medical facility in the United States, your published chance of a 5 year survival is invariably well under 5%. Once people learn that fact, then I believe there will be a demand to offer the advanced early cancer screening tests available today, and the talk about discontinuing cancer screening tests will be seen as it really is… another scare tactic in trying to maintain the status quo a little longer for the failing conventional approaches.
The problem is not what we call the abnormal test result, whether or not it contains the word cancer in it, the issue is to change what mainstream medicine advises patients to do about abnormal test results. In order to provide a true informed consent, it is necessary to mention that in some instances, left untreated, their abnormal test result may lead over to the development of clinical cancer; where there will be a detectable lump or bump, which is the unsophisticated, failing approach to managing cancer that we have relied on now for far too long.
I have had extensive experience with most forms of cancer testing. I’ve studied radiology, and later I became involved with thermography. Most importantly, I have worked with simple blood tests that are now increasingly available around the world and are able to detect cancer years before the clinical lump or bump stage of cancer has developed.
An excellent, inexpensive test that I have used for many years now is offered through American Metabolic Labs called the CaProfile test, which costs less than $500. This test has not failed to catch any and all cancer related lesions in their earliest and more curable stages. The CaProfile panel includes the PHI test (PhosphohexoseIsomerase), which reflects the levels of anaerobic metabolites in the body, along with ultrasensitive HCG done three different ways. I have had a Mayo Clinic test where my patients HCG value was negative, but due to a suspicious thermograph result, I then repeated the test using the CaProfile.net test the very next week and found it was really elevated using their special techniques.
There is another test that has been developed at PURDUE called the ONCOblot test (oncoblotlabs.com), and this test they believe finds every cancer but not until it is on average 2+ mm in size. That makes the caprofile.net test clearly more sensitive. Even so, the value of all of these tests is that by finding these elevated levels, it helps patients begin to take their health more seriously, motivating them to make the necessary changes in diet and environment.
Studying in Tokyo with Dr. Tsuneo Kobayashi, his multi-year study involving thousands of subjects clearly showed that annual testing in an asymptomatic population could be used to motivate subjects to follow simple health promoting strategies that can virtually eliminate all cancers! It made no difference what gene testing revealed, or how many family members had cancer. In all cases, the extensive $500 panel of blood tests accurately identified those whose total body burden of cancer was becoming increased. Then following through with simple strategies including daily exercise, diet change, elimination of sugar and smoking, and detoxification with FIR Sauna and herbal immune support (initiated long before the detectable lump stage of cancer had developed) permitted the cancer screening test abnormalities to revert back to safe healthy levels.
The KOBAYASHI study data proves early sensitive cancer marker testing is a valuable tool, that can help get the body back to safe levels every time, regardless of family history or having a gene like the BRCA gene or gastric carcinoma gene. Once we have the early cancer panel indicating some marginal results, we can motivate the patient not to try removing tissues or using chemo but to focus more on the problem, by using my FIGHT program. We might find that there are mercury issues in the mouth or other toxic exposures or excessive stress, parasites, sleep apnea, etc. that can be leading to respiratory insufficiency, anaerobic metabolism, low membrane potential, or low ATP levels.
I have tried to help in every way possible to spread the message about the exciting proof that using early cancer screening tests, in combination with a wellness promoting program, could almost eliminate cancers. I am certain the current attacks regarding the value of cancer screening tests is because the tests being used are not the ones I am advocating, and the approach being used to deal with abnormal results are too invasive and totally ignores the power of the body to heal itself given the support it needs.
Sincerely,
Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com
Maybe this attached article is interesting: treating cancer stem cells with antibiotics.
Kind regards,
Paul van Meerendonk, MD
Lariksweg 28
8162 EG Epe
The Netherlands
Tel: 31-578-610292
Fax: 31-578-610270