|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Anti-Cancer |
The role of
carcinogens Diseased teeth: In his book Prevention and Cure of Cancer, Dr Mulhim Hassan of Lebanon insists that a prime cause of cancer is the poisoning of the bloodstream by diseased and infected teeth, and his book is illustrated with many photographs showing the healing of various cancers and eye infections subsequent to removal of the infection source. Dr Joseph Issels of Germany (referred to later) has for over forty years asserted the causal connection of oral infections with cancer, and the removal of infected teeth is considered by him to be absolutely essential as part of the cancer therapy. Dr Max Garten, also of Germany, said in agreement with Issels: "This is one phase in the cancer treatment that requires adamant and uncompromising attention". Food additives as carcinogens: In July 1976, specialists from the US National Cancer Institute, American Health Federation, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wistar Institute of Philadelphia, testified before the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs to the effect that the potential of food additives for causing cancer had been grossly exaggerated, but that the "Standard American Diet" itself, high in fat, protein, highly-refined carbohydrates and low in "roughage", is possibly a causative factor and certainly a predisposing factor in hundreds of thousands of cancer cases each year. The liver is the body's first line of defense against harmful organisms and substances ingested in food. If the major cause of cancers were indeed carcinogens in the food, surely cancer of the liver would be most common. But it is not. Denmark has very strict prohibition against most food additives but has a cancer death rate 20% higher than Norway and Sweden which have far fewer restrictions on additives. In Cancer Research, Vol 35, page 3379 (K. Carroll), the dietary fat intake per capita in Denmark was reported as 158 gm per day and in Norway and Sweden as 132 gm per day, a difference of 20%. Again the cancer rate correlates exactly with the fat intake. All the observations and animal tests over and over reveal that with or without carcinogens, high fat levels constitute the greatest danger. Saccharin: In tests where rats were fed saccharin the equivalent for humans of 800 12 oz bottles of saccharin-sweetened soft drink per day cancer occurred in about 14% of the second generation rats. So it, was banned by the US Food and Drug Administration even though it was never shown to cause cancer in humans. Thus many people reverted back to sugar which has indeed been shown to increase human mortality. Fluoride and chlorine: Fluoride is an insidious, cumulative poison strongly suppressive to the immune system. There have been a number of occasions where the concentration of fluoride in water has inadvertently reached high levels, resulting in serious sickness through poisoning. Some people have died. High levels not only cause white teeth to mottle, but Dr J. Yiamouyiannis, Science Director of the US National Health Federation, after researching the records of the National Cancer Institute covering 25 cities, concluded there is a definite link between fluoridation and the cancer death rate. Dr Dean Burk, for thirty years in cancer research with the US National Cancer Institute and formerly Chief of Cyto Chemistry there, now runs the Dean Burk Foundation in Washington, DC and is currently working with Dr Yiamouyiannis. On December 10, 1983, Dr Burk issued an open communication which reads as follows: "The trends of the average annual cancer death rates (CDRs), from 1940-1969, of the 10 largest artificially fluoridated American cities, whose fluoridation commenced during the period 1952-1956, were compared with the corresponding trends of the average annual cancer death rates of the 10 largest American cities of equivalent initial CDR that remained nonfluoridated over the same period of 30 years. Comparisons were made with both weighted and unweighted averages. By 1969, the US officially reported, observed, average cancer death rate had reached an excess of more than 10% in the fluoridated group (population ca. 10,000,000) above that in the nonfluoridated group (population ca. 7,000,000). Initiation of this differentiation took place coincidental with initiation of artificial fluoridation, and was clearly evident statistically and graphically within 3 to 5 years, thus specifically indicating a causal, time-linked fluoridation-cancer association. "The foregoing observed ('crude') data were adjusted for age, sex and ethnicity simultaneously and separately by conventional indirect methods, using the 1950 total US population as standard, for the periods 1940-1950 and 1950-1970, so as to consider trends before and after fluoridation. In these adjustments all censal and interpolated intercensal data were used, in accordance and with widespread practice, and also a number of variations in choice of standard populations, and age groupings, (eg. to, 9 or 4), and also with respect to both ratio (SMR) and difference between CDR observed and CDR expected. The results obtained indicate that no more than about 20-40% of the fluoridation-cancer linkage can be explained by the indicated adjustments for age, sex and ethnicity, leaving the fluoridation factor dominant. "All proposed contraindications to this finding of a highly harmful (mortal) fluoridation-cancer link, most notably those contraindications advanced in Britain, were in error from inadequate consideration of available and necessary data of the type just indicated, primarily (1) prefluoridation period data and (2) otherwise widely used intercensal data (interpolated or officially estimated). The contraindication advanced in the Opinion of Lord Jauncey (Edinburgh Court of Session, June 1983, page 362, item 131) suffers from the same scientific inadequacy, and is at odds with the Decisions in the three major American courts where fluoridation was ruled a dangerous to health (Judge Flaherty, Pittsburg, November 1978; Judge Niemann, Illinois, February 1982; and Judge Farris, Houston, May 1982), and where much the same scientific information was presented in evidence." T. Okamura and T. Matsuhisha reported a similar correlation between fluoride and gastric cancer in Japan. Due to a number of deaths of patients treated on kidney machines using fluoridated water in the USA and Canada, the US Surgeon General cautioned all American hospitals to avoid use of fluoridated water in kidney machines. (See also Subtle fluoride poisoning , Chapter 21.) Chlorine is a chemical used to disinfect water supplies in certain areas and it too is known to be suppressive to the immune system. Its effect is described in the discussion on the immune system which follows. Other carcinogens: There are innumerable chemical substances used in industry and domestically which in addition to various chemicals used in the processing of food, are known to be detrimental to body chemistry to the extent of favoring the onset or growth of cancer. Although most people are exposed to them, only a minority actually develop cancer even among those who are heavily exposed. Thus such chemicals must be considered to be not primary causes, but "trigger" factors which influence pre-cancerous tissue to further adverse change. Cigarette smoking is an example of this as described in the discussion on lung cancer. Another example, not as clearly proven, is aluminum which enters foodstuffs from aluminum cooking utensils. Suspected of being the most widespread pollutant of indoor air is formaldehyde, a chemical used in particle board, artificial wood-grain finishes, foam insulation, plastics, disinfectants, paper products, even toothpaste, and many other products. The chemical continually enters the air (a process called "off-gassing") from the various sources and causes allergic responses which range from irritation of eyes, skin and respiratory tract to nervous disorders and asthma. Recent research by the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology showed that rats exposed for two years to formaldehyde fumes developed nasal tumors. Reference earlier in this chapter was made to the association of beer consumption with the incidence of cancer. A possible link is suggested by the report from a British Regional Heart study of 7,000 men aged 40 to 60 in which it was found that heavy beer drinkers had 30% more lead in their system than light drinkers or teetotallers. Those that smoked as well, had even higher amounts of lead. It is known that commercially manufactured beer also contains nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic substances. It is known also that beer, even in small quantities, increases the level of blood fats, reducing circulation and increasing blood pressure. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Purlife Health & Research Company |
|||||||||
